A Civilization

[tniem]

Originally posted by Immortal Wombat
I agree with KrazyHorse here, but I think the argument was lost to the "American-is-a-civ" posters when the Civ in question was named the English Civ. Its not. The only factor where that name has any relevance is the language.

America IMO is merely part (and I admit a major part) of the Western civilisation that has been present for the last 500 years, it may not have been a very united civilisation at some points, but in terms of Civ gaming, the flow of trade, technologies, population, and now with the UN and NATO, arms and military force, it is questionable whether the combined EU/USA/British commonwealth (please make sure you know the meaning of that word before replying) is actually more than one civilisation spread over 50 countries. Sure there are differences, but so there are between NY and Louisiana. America has not changed sufficiently for it to be a separate civ, but the civ it does belong to, it almost certainly leads.

O.K. I can agree to this. In fact I believe you. The US is definitely a part of Western Civilization.

However in game terms, you are not going to merge all Western Civ nations that fit into it into one civ are you? No Germans, French, English, Americans, Greeks, or Romans. It just isn't going to happen. Instead of 16 civs you would have like five. Western, Native Americans, Asian, Mesopatamia, and Africa. Isn't going to happen.

So in civ game terms, America would be a Civ, while in reality it only fits into a bigger one. I can agree to this.

[tniem]

Originally posted by down th' pub

When is the last time you voted for a federal tax cut?

November 2000

No wonder the old ladies in Palm Beach were so confused, they didn't have trouble with lining up holes they were busy trying to figure out how much money they would get from the tax cut.

Come on. As I recall Bush promised a 1.6 trillion cut. What congress passed was 1.2 Now it really doesn't matter the real amount, it just that if you voted for the tax cut in November, then why did congress have to pass it this spring? Why did Bush have to sign it?

Maybe because, you didn't vote for the proposal but instead a represanitive that you knew that would support it. Yeah, that is probably it. Which, means you participated in a Republic not a democracy.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Big Crunch
It suprised me to see that Canada only gave full suffrage in 1950!

1949, IIRC.

My province was...a bit backwards when it came to women's rights. Small towns, Catholic Church, etc.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
1949, IIRC.

My province was...a bit backwards when it came to women's rights. Small towns, Catholic Church, etc.

The difference of a year may be that suffreage was given in '49 and the first elections were in '50(?)

Given Canada's history in these sorts of things I would have thought it to be one of the first to give women full rights.

[d_dudy]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


1949, IIRC.

My province was...a bit backwards when it came to women's rights. Small towns, Catholic Church, etc.

blame on it the catholics

never heard that one before

[DarkCloud]

Explain further about why the Catholic church is backwards?...
They may have been, but they are no longer, thanks to Vatican II

[Dauphin]

They may have been, but they are no longer, thanks to Vatican II

The sequel to Vatican, coming to a theatre near you this September.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by d_dudy
blame on it the catholics

never heard that one before

Learn some Quebec history before you snore. Just about every source will point to the Church as the major conservative force in this province's history. I have nothing against the Church, and developed great respect for it during my education at a Jesuit high school.

[d_dudy]

"F*** the creationists"

sounds.....respectful

[KrazyHorse]

Catholics aren't "creationists" in the sense I mean...at least not the ones I know. Creationists can kiss my sweet little buttocks, not because they're religious, but because they attempt to pass off pseudo-scientific mummery as fact. This probably isn't the place to start this if you are, you know, one of them.

If you want to discuss, come to the OT and join in one of the endemic "Religion vs. Science" threads.

I think we've strayed far enough off the topic as is...

[faded glory]

Yea debate the existence of the almighty God in the OT forum...


I hate the way Craptivision did the civs. I mean, there was never a Nicaraugan or Cuban Civ? Or Nigerian/Brazil.

What gives here?


REAL civilizations

1) Celts
2)Hebrew
3)Arab
4)Persian
5)Mongol
6)Saxon
7)Aryan
8)Mayan
9)Slav

etc...

Sid seems to like picking Nationalities here, and not Civilizations..Europe would have been lumped in 3 categories. Celts, Saxon, and Aryan (until Mongol invaders came, bringing Slavs)


Still Civ3 looks interesting. I just hope they take a combat page from CTP and use the stack-attack feature. Much better than the one employed in Civ2

[ancient]

Originally posted by DarkCloud

United enemy- Iraq,China,etc.
United Goals- destroy Iraq,China,etc.

WTF are you talking about? ethnic enemy not united enemy and i dont consider china a united enemy or an ethnic enemy to united states (only to dumbass republicans) United states govternment is really horrible..

[d_dudy]

yes, our govterment is stupid to dislike people who run their fighter jets into our planes

[d_dudy]

damn it, i misspelled govternment

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Saddam

REAL civilizations

1) Celts
2)Hebrew
3)Arab
4)Persian
5)Mongol
6)Saxon
7)Aryan
8)Mayan
9)Slav

etc...

I have a feeling I may regret asking this, but Saddam: What is the logic behind your list? Hebrews are a religious group, Aryans are language group, and Persians are a nationality (although I may be wrong about that). What is the common link shared by these groups? Why do you consider each of these groups to be "real" civs?

Just wondering.