Happiness Pool

[orange]

Ah! So 1917 IS right! I confused myself. And when you said WWII was the birth of the USSR I thought "oh, yah he's right." I guess I was thinking about the Soviet Bloc. Ok I don't know what I was thinking.

------------------
Civilization Gaming Network Forums
~ The Apolyton Yearbook
~ The poster formerly known as "OrangeSfwr"

[Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto]

I have two things to say:

1. I think we have some Brits here who blaim us Americans for losing the American Revolution!

2. I probably know more about the American Revolution then all you put together (dont jump on me for saying that, I am not trying to brag). I am not kidding, Ive studied the war for...lets just say, quite a while. THe American Revolution was partly because of taxation, but it was also for several other reasons, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc. WE, now notice I am a full-blooded, proud to be, American. WE wanted to be our own nation. But those stupid fags across the sea said nope, we cant allow you to do that, or it will emparris us in front of the world. so, we went to war, and we still embarrased those fags! IN 1812, they came back, and said that we had embarrased them back in the war, so we said, ok, want to prove it? so they did, at least tried to. we womped them that time. and said, get the hell out of america, we are americans now.

now, if those brits would be around today, look at america now!

p.s. dont mean to sound like a history professor.
p.s. the taxes England put on US americans were NOT low. they were very high for the time. in britain they were less then 3%.
[This message has been edited by Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto (edited December 18, 2000).]

[Rollo Tomasi]

About the War of 1812...

We did not "womp" the "fags". The war ended in a stalemate, not because we kicked British ass, but because Britain had bigger problems to deal with (e.g. Napoleon). True, the war was about American nationalism, but it was mostly about invading Canada, which failed horribly. Also, Washington D.C. was put under siege and occupied. Does that really sound like we won? The one major American victory happened weeks after the peace treaty was signed!

P.S. I don't think I've ever heard a history professor use the term "womping fags"
[This message has been edited by Rollo Tomasi (edited December 18, 2000).]

[DarkCloud]

In Britain the rates were higher than in America!

Also the War of 1812 WAS STARTED by the US. You may be able to say that the United States only started it because they didn't want a trade embargo, but the trade embargo was about to be lifted and it really wasn't hurting American trade horribly.

Looking at documents of the period the American trade was still doing quite well and the Americans were 'greedy' to seize Canada, also the British were suffering almost more than the Americans.

P.S. "THREAD USURPERS!"
-start a thread in OT about this. so I can have back this thread!

[Deity Dude]

I dont think tax rate was meant in the sense of filing out a tax form. Its just a one of three components in the representation of the distribution of resources between treasury, science and luxury. Does anyone think we really accumulate beakers or that an advanced society in the 20th century only has a few thousand pieces of gold. The concept is what is important - not the actual number.

ps I looked thru an old history book and never saw the Britsh refered to as fags during the Revolutionary war nor did I ever see the war of 1812 considered anything better than a draw for the US. we did win a bunch in a row after that though - to quote Bill Murray from Stripes "we're 11 and 1"
[This message has been edited by Deity Dude (edited December 19, 2000).]

[orange]

quote: Originally posted by Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto on 12-18-2000 10:11 PM I have two things to say: 1. I think we have some Brits here who blaim us Americans for losing the American Revolution! 2. I probably know more about the American Revolution then all you put together (dont jump on me for saying that, I am not trying to brag). I am not kidding, Ive studied the war for...lets just say, quite a while. THe American Revolution was partly because of taxation, but it was also for several other reasons, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc. WE, now notice I am a full-blooded, proud to be, American. WE wanted to be our own nation. But those stupid fags across the sea said nope, we cant allow you to do that, or it will emparris us in front of the world. so, we went to war, and we still embarrased those fags! IN 1812, they came back, and said that we had embarrased them back in the war, so we said, ok, want to prove it? so they did, at least tried to. we womped them that time. and said, get the hell out of america, we are americans now. now, if those brits would be around today, look at america now! p.s. dont mean to sound like a history professor. p.s. the taxes England put on US americans were NOT low. they were very high for the time. in britain they were less then 3%. [This message has been edited by Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto (edited December 18, 2000).]

I have more than two things to say...

1) This is one of the biggest loads of horse**** that I have ever read on Apolyton.
2) I find it hard to believe that you know so much about the American Revolution with a 3rd grade spelling level and a thug's vocabulary
3) The American Revolution was fought because of long growing feelings of "freedom" and "liberty" which define our culture today. Half of what England did wasn't bad, and some was even beneficial. We only fought the revolution because we thought we could win it. And that's all. If it was truly about the colonists being oppressed, there wouldn't have been so many middle-class loyalists - willing to be hung by outraged radical followers of Patrick Henry.
4) We HARDLY beat the Brits in 1812. If it wasn't for our doubled land size with the Lousiana Purchase, it could have been our ultimate demise. We were absolutely bludgeoned by the motherland. Yes...the Brits were wrong to impress our sailors, but the only reason we fought the war is because Republicans had to make a stand against the "Evil British" to save face for their own mishaps. If the federalists were in power, we would have been fighting the French.
5) I'm not trying to be mean, but never, EVER make a claim that you know more than people here. There are some absolutely brilliant people at this message board who know just about everything there is to know about any topic you could even fathom.
6) If you refer to other nations as "fags"...prepare to be flamed. There are tons of Brits on this message board who would love to blacklist you for such comments (of course...you could always befriend MWHC )

Welcome to Apolyton

------------------
Civilization Gaming Network Forums
~ The Apolyton Yearbook
~ The poster formerly known as "OrangeSfwr"
[This message has been edited by orange (edited December 19, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by orange (edited December 19, 2000).]

[DarkCloud]

'Republicans', orange I hate to correct you, but you couldn't be more wrong.

The Republican party was formed in 1850

What you are referring to is the 'democratic-republicans' which were 'also known as the Republicans- but to keep it straight we should refer to them as either the Jeffersons or the Demo-Republicans'

quote: Find in this article Print article Democratic-Republican Party Democratic-Republican Party, early political party in the United States, originally led by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in the 1790s in opposition to the Federalist Party and the ideas of Alexander Hamilton. Although the party was also known as the Republican Party and the Jeffersonian Republican Party, in fact it was the forerunner of today's Democratic Party. The philosophy of the Democratic-Republican Party favored states' rights, rather than a strong national government; rural, agricultural interests; and supported the legitimacy of the French Revolution (1789-1799). The party opposed close ties with Britain. In 1796 Thomas Jefferson was the first Democratic-Republican candidate to run for president. Jefferson lost to Federalist John Adams, but became vice-president, creating the only administration with a president and a vice-president from different parties. In the election of 1800, Jefferson defeated Adams and became the first Democratic-Republican president. Jefferson was succeeded as president by two more Democratic-Republicans, James Madison in 1809 and James Monroe in 1817. By 1820 the Federalist Party ceased to function as a contender in national elections. At about the same time, the Democratic-Republican Party started to split into factions. One faction, led by Andrew Jackson, took the Democratic-Republican name, while supporters of John Quincy Adams, elected president in 1824, became known as the National Republicans. By the time Jackson was elected president in 1828, the name Democratic-Republican Party had been shortened to Democratic Party. See also Political Parties in the United States. HOW TO CITE THIS ARTICLE "Democratic-Republican Party," Microsoft® Encarta® Online Encyclopedia 2000 http://encarta.msn.com © 1997-2000 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

[orange]

well of course i was referring to the Jeffersonian-Republicans

I didn't think I'd have to type at the full name

------------------
Civilization Gaming Network Forums
~ The Apolyton Yearbook
~ The poster formerly known as "OrangeSfwr"

[Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto]

orange, I know I am about to get flamed.
and also, DO NOT, REPEAT, DO NOOOT MAKE FUN OF MY PERSONAL PROBLEMS. I happened to be in a hurry last night.

I have several other things to say:

1. brits, please dont take offence when I said, "fags", I was completely refering to the ones back then, NOT today.
2. ORange, you say, "We" when you talk about the americans, but you speak as though you were British.
3. We clobbered the British in the war of 1812, the only great thing they did was burn down Philadelphia.
4. The American War for Independence was because of...quote:

"Taxation Without Representation."

5. I know because Ive done more study, reading, etc. on the American Revolution then all other subjects combined, Im not kidding. what I said about being smarter about this subject then any other people on this page was stupid, I realize that.

p.s. Sorry it took frikkin' 8-12 editings to get this message completed, my computer was screwy at the time, and I could only type a few lines at a time.

another thing, LETS GET BACK TO THE SUBJECT OF CIV3!!!!!!!!!!!!
and lastly, a question for orange, what history books do you read on the American Revolution??!!??
[This message has been edited by Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto (edited December 19, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto (edited December 19, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto (edited December 19, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto (edited December 19, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto (edited December 19, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto (edited December 19, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto (edited December 19, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto (edited December 19, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto (edited December 19, 2000).]

[orange]

::in an attempt to take this off the boards::
...please check your PMs Diablo...

------------------
Civilization Gaming Network Forums
~ The Apolyton Yearbook
~ The poster formerly known as "OrangeSfwr"

[Grumbold]

*agrees with Rollo*

Now, back to Tax rates:

Throughout the "developed" nations the tax rates are actually very similar when you compare not just what the Government takes (in both direct and indirect taxes, from companies and from individual workers) but what you get for what you pay. Tax is slightly lower in the US than the UK, but you get funded medical health in the UK, for example. However Civ in its present form isn't about accurate economic simulation (thank goodness, no-one fully understands it anyway )
so a nice simple 1-10 or 10%-100% is easier to follow than 40% +/- 1% increments. Perhaps they could even just switch it to textual None, very low ... high,punishing,despotic! That way there is no confusion over exactly what rate of tax is being used since it varies widely. Even in the Soviet USSR (if memory serves) tax wasn't too dissimilar - it just went into the military instead of providing services for the citizens.

[Grumbold]

I'd be happy to see the original idea reposted and the rest deleted, it seems to be impossible to get the thread back onto its original track.

I believe high happiness should be its own reward. If you pamper your citizens they will not revolt even if there is a setback or two. Giving production bonuses or increased population growth is unrealistic because it is just too easy to make people more than content. Living in London I am surrounded by all the "happiness" improvements that Civvers have dreamed of, and don't see daily parades saying how wonderful the Gov't is, or anyone volunteering to put in more overtime for free

[Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto]

Grumbald is right, we are getting way off the subject at hand. pretty much all this thread has turned into is a depate on the American Revolution.