Political Curiosities.

[Mr Mystery]

How do.

Just a wee thread to discuss political ideas you find either outright odd, or otherwise seemingly the opposite of a wings normal rhetoric.

As you may have noticed, I'm a lefty, and thus largely blind to such dichotomies on my own side. You should take this as disclaimer that I am by no means being deliberately partisan.

So, first up is the right wings wish for small government. Fair enough, I see where they are coming from. Part of this is that they don't want people meddling in their lives. Again, perfectly understandable. Yet there are elements of the right who seem intent on meddling in the lives of others, wanting to dent equality for some, and control decisions by outlawing certain things (trying to keep this deliberately vague to avoid arguments of any specific issue). Surely this interference goes against at least one of the ideals of the right wing? To my mind, the right to equality isn't something anyone should be voting for or against. They should be granted already. As long as it is something engaged in by two consenting adults, causes no deliberate harm of any kind, and has no affect on any uninvolved party, why the hell shouldn't it be allowed?

How about you? Is there anything that leaves your mind boggled politically?

[White Tiger88]

How anyone could be stupid enough to vote for Mitt Romney...a man who is influenced to change decisions he comes to with logic by a little voice in his head he calls god.....Ya that is TOTALLY A GUY TO TRUST WITH THE NUCLEAR LAUNCH CODES!

[Mr Mystery]

Yes. Well. Not quite the first response I was hoping for. Let's try to keep this as generically partisan as possible. At least for a while. Discuss the idea/ideal and not the person/persons.

[Drunkencorgimaster]

It is a bit of a paradox and I think that is one reason why a certain number of Republicans lean libertarian or even defect wholeheartedly to the Libertarian Party. I really don't get how all these "Defense of Marriage Acts" are compatible with what should be Republican ideology. I'm not even sure heavy defense spending is fully consistent with Republican principles either.

[Sean_OBrien]

How about you? Is there anything that leaves your mind boggled politically?

The idea of correcting a wrong with another wrong...

It isn't particular to one side of things or another - but it is quite common.

Lefties want to make gay marriage legal, the religious types want to create a constitutional amendment which bans gay marriage. Outside of Vatican City - I feel both sides are wrong. Marriage has long been a religious ceremony, something which government has little business in. If the government were to remove itself from the issue of marriage, and simply deal with contracts - all the various aspects of the debate would be resolved. People would enter into a domestic contract (either a blanket one which grants rights like current marriage laws provide for) and the religious types would not need to worry about government encroachment on their dogmatic beliefs. If you want to marry a man, woman, two men, three women - that is an issue for your church. If you want to enter into a domestic partnership with the same groups - existing contract law is well established to handle such things (including multiple partners if that is what floats your boat).

The same goes for things like quotas in entrance to schools and employers. Placing the number on things doesn't actually represent equality or go any distance to improve relations, quite often the opposite effect occurs. Those who fall outside of the quota system feel they are being discriminated against and quite often that is used to reinforce existing prejudices. And in many ways they are right. If someone is turned away simply because they are not the right color or sex for a position in favor of someone who is - that is discrimination as well.

The religious groups like the idea of "Faith Based Government" initiatives, but then get upset if the government attempts to put limits on their religious groups actions (either positive or negative limits). You also see the left becoming upset when things like drug tests are suggested as a prerequisite to receive welfare benefits. In both instances, the better option would be to keep the function separate from the government...however if you insist on getting money for your religious adoption service to a check from the state for a free cell phone - it is in the state's interest (and sometimes legally requirement) to control the aspects which they fund.

[Mr Mystery]

See, as permissive as I am, I feel there should be a full separation of church and state. As an atheist, it irks me that a portion of the council tax I pay goes to the Church of England. I have no issue with offering a political opinion, but being a non-believer, I object to my money in any way funding them. After all, political parties have to raise their own funds, why not the church?

Take Scotland. Looks very much like gay marriage is about to become a reality in my home land. Yet no religious body will be forced to perform such a ceremony.

As for the definition of marriage, it's been changed many times. Even marriage for love is a pretty recent invention. Even into Victorian times it was often a political arrangement to cement business relations.

Not allowing gay marriage is a form of discrimination, and I would like to see all discrimination, even the bizarre concept of 'positive discrimination' go the way of the dodo. People face enough challenges in life without people inventing them. Or at least, conscious examples of both. What do I mean? Read on!

Now some might say any job interview is some kind of discrimination. And to some degree they are right. However, it is a matter of ensuring the person wanting the job is suitably equipped to do so. That isn't positive or negative discrimination, it's (in theory...) completely neutral. A person either does or does not have the desired skill set and attitude for any given job. As long as those are the sole considerations, no discrimination of any impact has occurred.

[wittdooley]

How anyone could be stupid enough to vote for Mitt Romney...a man who is influenced to change decisions he comes to with logic by a little voice in his head he calls god.....Ya that is TOTALLY A GUY TO TRUST WITH THE NUCLEAR LAUNCH CODES!

Wow. You should probably just exit the conversation now. You'll save all of the intelligent, articulate posters a lot of time and energy responding to ridiculous statements like this

There are plenty of paradoxes contained within the American political system and that's because we have two parties. Romney isn't "really" a dogmatic republican; since our previous discussion got thread locked, ill address it here: while he's pro-life personally, his track record clearly states that he's not going to fringe upon others rights and at a government level believes that it shouldn't be outlawed by the government. The reason he's had to appear to take a harder stance is because we have two parties and he needs the republican boat. I'd consider myself a libertarian. See a libertarian candidate in the debates? Nope.

[Sean_OBrien]

See, as permissive as I am, I feel there should be a full separation of church and state. As an atheist, it irks me that a portion of the council tax I pay goes to the Church of England. I have no issue with offering a political opinion, but being a non-believer, I object to my money in any way funding them. After all, political parties have to raise their own funds, why not the church?

My understanding was that the specific flow of money wasn't quite so clear. I believed that part of your taxes went to the Crown and then the Crown - being the head of the Church gave some of their money to fund the churches. While it wouldn't work well over here, with the Royals still in place and their position within the Church still in place - there would inevitably be some commingling of funds. Not sure how much there would be though, something like the Church of England probably has a significant pile of wealth (both monetary and other things like real estate) which should fund their expenses for decades to come.

[DarkLink]

I always find if funny how much I sound like a devout republican when I'm really a libertarian. I just find that I hear individuals that ignore the content of opposing opinions, and so I'm like "well, actually, this is what they're saying". I think the only personal political opinions that I've expressed on here is a support for the 1st and 2nd amendment, and that I'm not a fan of Obama or socialism.


Wow. You should probably just exit the conversation now. You'll save all of the intelligent, articulate posters a lot of time and energy responding to ridiculous statements like this


Someone actually said that to me once, about McCain instead of Romney. I just shrugged, and stopped thinking of him as a rational individual with a relevant and objective opinion.

[Mr Mystery]

1st response is now dealt with.

Libertarian? Please explain, don't think I've heard of that, and I don't trust Wiki when it comes to politics.

[wittdooley]

1st response is now dealt with.

Libertarian? Please explain, don't think I've heard of that, and I don't trust Wiki when it comes to politics.

I'm sure Obrien or link will be able to explain it more thoroughly, but its a basically a viewpoint that wants to decrease bug government control while increasing personal accountability. This means decriminalizing some drugs. This means not giving a crap about who sleeps with who. It means reigning in gov spending.

Honestly, the only people in our country that are truly "Republicans" are the very religious. If you polled young working republicans (25-40yo) I'd wager a large percentage of them have a more libertarian viewpoint.

[Mr Mystery]

Sounds intriguing. Is it an established movement, or something relatively recent?

[Nabterayl]

I don't want to speak for any individual libertarians we might have here, but in general, Americans define a libertarian social philosophy as in favor of limited government and individual liberty. A common gloss is fiscally conservative but socially liberal (or permissive). That gloss is phrased in opposition to modern American republicanism, which can be thought of as fiscally and socially conservative, but I think it's still pretty accurate in defining how most Americans think about libertarianism.

To expand on the socially liberal aspect, a conservative Republican might say, "I disapprove of social practice X, and therefore it should be illegal." A moderate Republican might say, "I disapprove of social practice X, but the federal government should not legislate with respect to it one way or the other." A libertarian can say, "I approve of social practice X" and still - because of his or her belief that a government's budget, and therefore activities, should be highly limited - not really belong on the American political left.

Another wrinkle I often find about American libertarians (and this may be just my personal data sample) is that they tend to be in favor of limited budget-and-therefore-scope with respect to all governments, regardless of size. By contrast, the heart of the Republican "small government" mantra is that the federal government's budget-and-therefore-scope should be limited. Historically, the Republican party appealed to a lot of libertarians, so there is a strong component of "all governments should have small BATS" within the Republican party, but it's still perfectly within the ambit of Republican philosophy to believe, for instance, that the federal government should be small and do little, but a state or municipal government should be large and do much.

EDIT: I don't know if you can call American libertarianism an "established movement." We have no libertarian political party (in part because, until fairly recently, libertarian voters tended to feel pretty well aligned with the Republican party), and there aren't any national libertarian organizations with much social or political clout that I'm aware of. On the other hand, it's certainly a significant strain of American political thought - enough so that when I was in high school it was presented in government class as essentially half the reasons somebody might vote Republican.

As for its history, libertarianism has been around as a political philosophy for as long as I can remember, so it's at least thirty years old or so - probably longer, given how long it takes a new political idea to make its way into secondary education curricula. As for whether or not libertarianism was a significant political idea in the era of, say, the Progressives - couldn't say without relying on the same sources you've got access to.

[Sean_OBrien]

Sounds intriguing. Is it an established movement, or something relatively recent?

Yes and no...

At it's heart, the Libertarian movement goes back to the founding of our country (in concept though the term itself wasn't used till later on)...however the problem has long been that because Libertarians tend to believe the problem with government is the government they tend to not be terribly politically involved. At least in so much as actually running for office, they do tend to have very strong political positions.

Largely though, it comes down to fairly simple set of principles. The government should only be so large as to be able to ensure the rights of the individual. Individual freedom is paramount, however without individual responsibility - individual freedom falls flat.

Now the particulars of what those principles mean will depend a lot on the individual libertarian which you happen to come across. In the US, currently the strongest voices who happen to push the issue are people like Ron and Rand Paul who are politicians with strong Libertarian leanings who happen to set up camp under the Republican tent. You also have media talking heads like Neal Boortz who are strong adherents to the general principles. To a lesser degree, you have various other people including actual Libertarian politicians like Gary Johnson (who previously ran under the Republican tent) and of course think tanks like the Cato Institute and to some degree the Ayn Rand Institute (although not strictly libertarian - there are significant areas where objectivism overlaps with libertarianism).

There are also areas where significant splits exist. One of the most noteworthy areas is in relation to national security. Many libertarians are against a standing army and overseas activities, preferring a non-interventionist policy regarding everywhere outside of the US and only using the military to directly defend the borders. The other side acknowledges the realities of modern warfare where in if you wait till an enemy is at your borders, chances are you have already lost. Both are against intervening within internal wars, however the one side prefers a neutral position regarding regional wars while the other is cautious about allowing those to go on unchecked as small regional wars generally grow in scale without any intervention.

And of course you have the official Libertarian Party which came about as a counterpoint to the shift which occurred within the late 1960s where the Democratic party became huge government socialists and the Republican party became big government little socialists. They saw the large expansions of various social programs, the continuing draft for the Vietnam war and the abandonment of the gold standard as specific actions which could well destroy the country and felt they needed to organize a voice. Neither of the existing two big parties really provided an answer as both were in collusion at the core problems of which were apparent to the Party's founders. Won't speak too much more for them though, the Libertarian Party has a website...they have a platform that explains their positions...it is pretty straight forward.

http://www.lp.org/platform

The Wiki article is actually a pretty good cliff notes version of the Party itself, so if you prefer that - you can read the short version:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Party_%28United_States%29

Unfortunately that still doesn't say a whole heck of a lot regarding libertarians in particular.

When the population is polled regarding their specific ideals (as opposed to the declared party affiliation) the general population of the US has upwards of 25% falling in line with the platform of the Libertarian Party (which is comparable to both the number of registered Democrats or Republicans and actually higher than either party gets for support for their party platform).

Many parts of the Tea Party movement were rooted in the libertarian movement - up until the religious right moved in and began to push the groups closer to the Republican party.

There is a lot more to it than that though - unfortunately you end up getting fairly deep into the weeds regarding things like currency and taxation as well as the various prohibitions which exist that they would have lifted and all the governmental programs which would need to be removed in order to institute a return to personal responsibility.


It is a bit of a paradox and I think that is one reason why a certain number of Republicans lean libertarian or even defect wholeheartedly to the Libertarian Party. I really don't get how all these "Defense of Marriage Acts" are compatible with what should be Republican ideology. I'm not even sure heavy defense spending is fully consistent with Republican principles either.

The issue with the Republican Party is really that that is inline with the ideology. Much of the platform is tied to the religious right and other parts of the platform are tied to the so called neo-conservatives.

However, heavy levels of defense spending are not necessarily outside the interest of the Libertarian Party. Given the nature of modern warfare - ICBMs, stealth aircraft, nuclear weapons...in order to preserve the security of the country, it would necessarily require a significant expenditure which is not outside the directives of the Constitution. Gone are the days where you have months of warning as armies are built up and ships commissioned to sail an invasion force halfway around the world. However, intervening in civil wars are outside the concern of national interests and tend to go against the principles of the philosophy.

However, regarding the specifics of Libertarians who are taking shelter within the confines of the Republican tent - that tends to be a matter of the lesser of two evils. Most the disagreeable aspects of the Republican party have minimal impact on individuals. By keeping a hand inside their machine, it is possible to work to reign in some of the spending that they would like to do. With the exception of a couple of small points though, they are in complete disagreement with the Democratic Party.

[Nabterayl]

On the issue of the religious right, I think one of the things it (and therefore, the parts of the Republican party that are actually sympathetic to it) have in common with many parts of the American left is the notion that a body politic should pass laws to reflect the beliefs of the body politic (= the voting majority, in American political ideology). If a majority of The People believe that X is wrong, can and should they use their sovereignty to oppose X with the power of the state?

Yes, says the American leftist.
Yes, says the American rightist.
No, says the libertarian.

The American right and American left will disagree as to whether X is wrong for a lot of X's (they'll also disagree as to whether a majority of The People agree with them). But both believe that, if something is wrong, The People should smite that wrong with the power of their sovereignty. A libertarian says, "Well, yes, The People could do that. They would be within their rights. But I don't think they should smite X just because X is wrong."

[White Tiger88]

Wow. You should probably just exit the conversation now. You'll save all of the intelligent, articulate posters a lot of time and energy responding to ridiculous statements like this

There are plenty of paradoxes contained within the American political system and that's because we have two parties. Romney isn't "really" a dogmatic republican; since our previous discussion got thread locked, ill address it here: while he's pro-life personally, his track record clearly states that he's not going to fringe upon others rights and at a government level believes that it shouldn't be outlawed by the government. The reason he's had to appear to take a harder stance is because we have two parties and he needs the republican boat. I'd consider myself a libertarian. See a libertarian candidate in the debates? Nope.

As a non-American that is simply my view, if you don't respect it i am not surprised.

[Sean_OBrien]

As a non-American that is simply my view, if you don't respect it i am not surprised.

The problem though isn't so much the opinion, rather the wrong tone for a discussion. It also ignores the reality:

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/02/obama-reflects-on-faith-in-prayer-breakfast-speech/

If you were to believe Obama - his faith dictates his actions as much as Romney's dictates his. Of course, the cynic could claim that it is merely political lip service, however for me that calls Obama into even greater question as lying about something which is as deeply a part of someone as a religious belief is reflects a significant character flaw for that individual (barring of course penalty of death as seen in some countries around the world).

Although I hold no specific religious belief myself, I respect the nature of religion enough not to use it as a tool in order to attempt to "win friends and influence people". Nor do I assume that belief in a particular religion is an indication of mental infirmity as there still remain a lot of unanswered questions which at this point can only be described away with religion.

[White Tiger88]

I know this would be to easy but how much easier would it be if they said "No religion and politics" ....As a freaking law? Also i have to admit you guys have some screwed up talk show hosts warping the minds of your voters pretty badly *Cough Bill, Cough Glen Beck*

[eldargal]

One thing that bugs me, particularly but not exclusively with American small government proponents, is how willing they are to defend capital punishment. So you want small government without excessive power, but then you want to give them the right of life and death over the populace, even if it is just the criminal element? That is anathema to me. I know there are arguments in favour of capital punishment and arguments against, that itself isn't the issue. I just cannot comprehend how anyone claiming to support small government wants to give them ultimate power when the government is also the legislature. It's particularly perverse in the USA where you still have the death penalty for high treason and yet they have the Second Amendment (I think it is the 2nd?) to give them the right to bear arms againt tyrannical guvmints, which is high treason...

I'm very much in favour of small government and something of a libertarian myself and I just don't understand this at all.

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

How do.

Just a wee thread to discuss political ideas you find either outright odd, or otherwise seemingly the opposite of a wings normal rhetoric.

As you may have noticed, I'm a lefty, and thus largely blind to such dichotomies on my own side. You should take this as disclaimer that I am by no means being deliberately partisan.

So, first up is the right wings wish for small government. Fair enough, I see where they are coming from. Part of this is that they don't want people meddling in their lives. Again, perfectly understandable. Yet there are elements of the right who seem intent on meddling in the lives of others, wanting to dent equality for some, and control decisions by outlawing certain things (trying to keep this deliberately vague to avoid arguments of any specific issue). Surely this interference goes against at least one of the ideals of the right wing? To my mind, the right to equality isn't something anyone should be voting for or against. They should be granted already. As long as it is something engaged in by two consenting adults, causes no deliberate harm of any kind, and has no affect on any uninvolved party, why the hell shouldn't it be allowed?

How about you? Is there anything that leaves your mind boggled politically?

Aren't ALL of the Politics threads like this? ALL OF THEM?
Why is the only point of major discussion on a Wargaming forum Politics?
Why is there always a new Politics thread EVERY 2 SECONDS? That discusses the EXACT SAME THINGS on each freaking thread?

Tell me!

[DarkLink]

Because it's more interesting that talking about the weather?


It's particularly perverse in the USA where you still have the death penalty for high treason and yet they have the Second Amendment (I think it is the 2nd?) to give them the right to bear arms againt tyrannical guvmints, which is high treason...

Well, the Second Amendment is absolutely within the scope of libertarianism, in that it recognizes that the individual is responsible for his or her own defense. The government has military and police to help out, but that does not dissolve the individual's right to self defense for several reasons, mainly that 1) the founding fathers experienced firsthand dangers of tyranny, enough so that they rebelled, and 2) that you can't have a police officer standing guard at every door of every person in the whole country at all times.

As for executions, while libertarians generally want a small government that doesn't necessarily mean they want a weak government. Depending on the party, this can be somewhat self-contradictory, but generally we want a government that has minimum involvement in dictating how we live our lives, but is fully capable of enforcing justice and acting in the defense of its citizens. A strong court system is part of that, presuming that we also take care to ensure fair trials and such. And since a strong emphasis is generally placed on personal responsibility, that means when you are convicted, the result is a less forgiving sentence.

But as Nab said, libertarian is a pretty broad term. It's kind of like calling someone a Republican or Democrat, it often doesn't tell you much more than 'they probably like/dislike welfare', but there is such a broad spectrum of views that you really have to get to know the person to really know what they believe.

As an example, someone mentioned legalized drugs. That may or may not be supported by a libertarian, for several reasons. Some might think that government simply shouldn't deal with that at all, and let people ruin their lives as they see fit. Others might think that it should be legal, but discourage via sin taxes and the like. Some might find it to be a purely destructive and criminal behavior. But they do tend to be on the side of legalization. Similarly, libertarians generally couldn't care less about gay marriage, because many see marriage as a religious thing that the government shouldn't be handling in the first place.

There are some aspects that I do find somewhat peculiar. Some libertarians seem to be hardcore isolationists, with talk about how we should recall all our military from every single foreign nation and never talk or do business with anyone else ever again, ever. To me, that doesn't make sense, because quintessentially Americans are human beings like everyone else, and to make the world a better place it seems that the only way forward is to work together. I mean, what is America if not an immigrant nation? As a whole, we probably have one of the most ethnically diverse populations in the world, with ethnic groups from all over Europe, Asia, South America, Africa, and of course native Americans.

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

I'd rather talk about wargaming. :p

If you insist that we must discuss foreign politics then let me introduce the Shivering Isles!
We have cake, and cheese! Oh the cheese! To die for.
Come to the Shivering Isles, you won't die, we promise. Though you may be forced to eat clouds... Or was it clowns...? No matter. Ta-ta, and do visit soon... Or I'll pluck out your eyes!

[wittdooley]

I'd rather talk about wargaming. :p

If you insist that we must discuss foreign politics then let me introduce the Shivering Isles!
We have cake, and cheese! Oh the cheese! To die for.
Come to the Shivering Isles, you won't die, we promise. Though you may be forced to eat clouds... Or was it clowns...? No matter. Ta-ta, and do visit soon... Or I'll pluck out your eyes!

Well isn't that why we have the Obliette in the first place? I like discussing it here for many reasons, the primary that I respect and am interested to hear from most of the folks that participate.

Understand that these threads are at their Apex right now because of the pending US election. And it's important to discuss it. If you really saw how uneducated about it the US populace at large is, I think you'd have an even better appreciation for these discussions. :-)

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

But I'm English! I don't live in America!
Why are English people discussing American politics? I don't even...


If you really saw how uneducated about it the US populace at large is, I think you'd have an even better appreciation for these discussions. :-)

That's kinda patronising.

[eldargal]

Because we English have an inherently superior political system and it's fun to rub the former colonials noses in it until they eventually collapse under their own corpulence and we waltz back in and take over the place again and show them how a real hegemony is run.:p

God Save The Queen, motherfudgers.

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

Amen to that!

God save the Queen!

[Sean_OBrien]

God save the Queen!

I understand that Prince Charles is a bit fruity - but I wouldn't go as far as to call him a queen. :D

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

Fruity baby, he's god damned fabulous.

[eldargal]

I understand that Prince Charles is a bit fruity - but I wouldn't go as far as to call him a queen. :D

Are you mad? The man had a mistress, you can't get more stylish and masculine. No resorting to ******** and cigars with an intern under the desk for our Crown Prince.:p

[Gotthammer]

American Politics are weird. (http://www.somethingawful.com/d/news/matt-romney-president.php)


EG - not only that he married her and made everyone stop hating her after previously being married to one of the most beloved princesses since Princess Grace. Charles be a straight up playa.
And his rants about bad architecture are pretty funny.

Though honestly his cheating on his wife makes him a dick in my book, regardless of how bad the marriage was - Henry VIII made himself head of the church for just that reason.


Oh, and unrelated but somewhat political (make sure you watch all the way through):


http://youtu.be/A8JsRx2lois

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

I'm with you on that Gotthammer. I am an honourable man now, no two women for me.

Also, why would I want more than one? The one I'm involved with is annoying as it is.

/troll or /***** :p
She'll understand what that last one is, she uses on me often enough, right EG? Hahaha

[eldargal]

The one you've been given permission to attempt to court in order to be involved with you mean?:p

/*****

If I had to marry Princess Diana I'd probably have had an affair too. Two blonde nutjobs in a relationship is just asking for disaster.

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

You aren't Bane, woman!

"When Gotham is ashes you have my permission to court"

[eldargal]

I'm better than Bane, I have better fashion sense and I'm not a prat.

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

Because Bane has fashion sense? He's wearing a freaking Space Marine vox unit, that is neither functional nor trendy.

But damn do I want to dress as him for Halloween. :p

[White Tiger88]

The one you've been given permission to attempt to court in order to be involved with you mean?:p

/*****

If I had to marry Princess Diana I'd probably have had an affair too. Two blonde nutjobs in a relationship is just asking for disaster.

Hey hey hey......Two blondes over here is anything but a disaster! hell its called Porn. Now if you put a bunch of us crazy Italians together...you get a Disaster......


Because Bane has fashion sense? He's wearing a freaking Space Marine vox unit, that is neither functional nor trendy.

But damn do I want to dress as him for Halloween. :p

Thats a muzzle because he keeps trying to bite people D:

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

I thought you were British! Are you British Canadian Italian?

[White Tiger88]

I thought you were British! Are you British Canadian Italian?

Half Italian, with a 25% mix of British & 12.5% Scottish Irish

I can take all the racial drinking types at once except Russian...YA!

[eldargal]

Hee, yes. Thanks to my Russian blood I can outdrink almost anyone except mother.

[White Tiger88]

Hee, yes. Thanks to my Russian blood I can outdrink almost anyone except mother.

In canada that's a major turn on......Mostly because half the people here are drunk after a single beer -_-

*Gets Ready to dodge tzeentch's counter blow*

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

It's fine, I'm part Irish and part Scottish. COME AT ME ELDARGAL.

I have outdrunk Russians. I never have hangovers, and I rarely ever actually get drunk from drinking excessive amounts.
There is also the small point of my teenaged years to consider, rock concerts and festivals are excuses to drink ALL THE ALCOHOL.

I say again, come at me.

[White Tiger88]

It's fine, I'm part Irish and part Scottish. COME AT ME ELDARGAL.

I have outdrunk Russians. I never have hangovers, and I rarely ever actually get drunk from drinking excessive amounts.
There is also the small point of my teenaged years to consider, rock concerts and festivals are excuses to drink ALL THE ALCOHOL.

I say again, come at me.

So your an old Fart now Eh? Also stop Courting her in Public!! SHE MAUL YOU IN GOOD TIME I AM SURE!!!

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

Yet again, come at me. :p
EldarGal couldn't/wouldn't beat me up, she's too much of a softy.

I'm certainly not old, I'm a prime 20 years of age. 500% more awesome!

[Gotthammer]

Non Australians talking about drinking...

http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r314/Gotthammer/tumblr_m950a7efnM1rw5yn2o3_250.gif

http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r314/Gotthammer/tumblr_m950a7efnM1rw5yn2o4_250.gif

[Mr Mystery]

I challenge you all to a drinking competition. Perhaps after Bolscon?

And let's not forget.... Britain invented drinking. The Scots perfected it. Why does the US assosciate with the softy Irish? Easy. Us Scots don't stop to brag. That wastes valuable drinking time.

[White Tiger88]

Yet again, come at me. :p
EldarGal couldn't/wouldn't beat me up, she's too much of a softy.

I'm certainly not old, I'm a prime 20 years of age. 500% more awesome!

...Go wash my FW army for me then kiddo.

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

Ship it to me. I won't steal it or anything. :p

@ - Mystery, I'm the only Brit here who is coming to BOLSCON.

[Gotthammer]

Then you have your nation's honour to uphold ;)

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

But everyone at BoLSCon UK is British? :p

[Gotthammer]

You'll just have to do all their drinking for them then!

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

True. :p

Weaklings.

[wittdooley]

Wasn't trying to be patronizing. If you saw how the political ads pander to the lowest common denominator, you'd see it. You really have to be an uneducated sheep to believe any of them, and sadly many do.

And my goodness. I'm gone to get breakfast and groceries for 2 hours and this thread has completely devolved.

On another note, we went to toys r us and I saw some ME3 action figs and immediately thought of EG.

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

I arrived... The Herald of Derailment. :p

I don't believe any propaganda. I have a mysterious political agenda that no one knows of.

[eldargal]

On another note, we went to toys r us and I saw some ME3 action figs and immediately thought of EG.

Well it's a welcome change from porn magazines.:p

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

Zing. :p

[eldargal]

Seriously ever other time I go to a night clubor something with friends some guy asks me if I'm some pornstar or other. I mean for gods sake how many vintage dressing pornstars with upper class english accents would there be?

[Gotthammer]

If he's lucky there only needs to be one ;)

[Sean_OBrien]

Seriously ever other time I go to a night clubor something with friends some guy asks me if I'm some pornstar or other. I mean for gods sake how many vintage dressing pornstars with upper class english accents would there be?

One of the more enjoyable aspects of being stationed in England was that the locals didn't provide much competition with chatting up girls at the clubs.

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

Giggety. :p

I'll destroy them all for you EG. :)

[Montpup]

Because we English have an inherently superior political system and it's fun to rub the former colonials noses in it until they eventually collapse under their own corpulence and we waltz back in and take over the place again and show them how a real hegemony is run.:p

God Save The Queen, motherfudgers.


Inherently superior political system? As someone who lives in one of your former colonies, who is stuck with the Westminster system I can tell you I have found dog poo on the bottom of my shoe that is a better political system. At least with the American system it is so confusing you can fool yourself into thinking polictians are working for the betterment of the people, in Australia we have a building full of retards that are so retarded they got thrown out of special school, give me the great American lie anyday

[Mr Mystery]

Silly Colonial underling.

We sold you the 'bronze' bundle. Keeps you in your place, what what.

[Psychosplodge]

Non Australians talking about drinking...

http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r314/Gotthammer/tumblr_m950a7efnM1rw5yn2o3_250.gif

http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r314/Gotthammer/tumblr_m950a7efnM1rw5yn2o4_250.gif
That yellowish liquid you filter through horses and pass off as lager can't be considered when talking about drinking.
Though i know now I'm knocking on a bit I certainly can drink like I could when I was eighteen...


Seriously ever other time I go to a night clubor something with friends some guy asks me if I'm some pornstar or other. I mean for gods sake how many vintage dressing pornstars with upper class english accents would there be?
I've seen enough....wait a minute I mean....
Don't they usually end up having american accents, no matter how vintage they've dressed them? ¬_¬
Only English ones you ever seem to see are amateurs or these awful fake essex-slag type, at least in my very limited experiance :D

[Mr Mystery]

no that would be a pint of pish.

I drink Ale. you wouldn't understand it. It makes a man of you :p

In fact, I have a bottle of King Goblin knocking about here somewhere. But I think I'll have a Goliath tonight....

http://www.wychwood-shop.co.uk/brewery-store/ Where real men go to get smashed.

[Psychosplodge]

I can't drink wychwood beers they use something that I'm allergic to in them. Which is irritating as I like most of the ones I've tried.

Now http://www.abbeydalebrewery.co.uk/ that I can manage :P

[Mr Mystery]

Horrable Skellington looks well tasty! Got to love a dark beer!

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

Go British politics! We love beer!