The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
I notice it was Australia and New Zealand that managed to capture German colonies in Papua and Western Samoa without Japanese aid.
They got lucky. Our incompetent leaders just missed meeting the German East Asiatic squadron on the way to Samoa. Spee would have given them a good kicking too.
The meaning of words depends on how people use them. No one uses your definition of conservative. Conservatives are the antiliberals, but the liberals don't just want change for the sake of change. Sometimes they want things the way that they are. How can you say that something like welfare reform is reactionary? It's not. It's conservative because everyone says it is but you.
It's not the official definition of the word.
and It's not my definition.
The current way that people have been using 'Conservative' is merely a foul appropriation of the correct term.
If you're going to argue based on 'how people use things' you'll suddenly be overwhelmed by 1000's of opinions attacking every nuance and every situation. What would be conservative to one person would be liberal to another. That's why I finally retreated back to the dictionary as a last resort.
-->Visit CGN!
-->"Production! More Production! Production creates Wealth! Production creates more Jobs!"-Wendell Willkie -1944
What a terrible thing to do! Damn the labor unions! We'd be super competative if we repealed all our labor, environmental, and minimum wage laws... we'd be a third world country, but our goods would be so cheap!
etc., etc., etc.
I have heard these arguments since I was a small kid. The unions and Democrats have been against every labor-saving invention, advance, trend or whatever for as long as time exists. They opposed eliminating firemen on diesel railroads. They opposed the introduction of automation in the factory. They opposed the introduction of computers in the office. They opposed buying parts from foreign companies.
And the beat goes on, and on, and on, and on, and on. The stupidity of the arguments are obvious to to anyone who understands the least bit about economics. But, the Dems rely on the stupidity of their audience in order for people to buy their crap.
Free trade in all its forms has lead to tremendous economic expansion since it was introduced. Adam Smith has to be given his due. He is as important to modern civilization as is Newton.
The bottom line: competition is the soul of free trade. It leads to better products, lower costs and greater wealth for all. As productivity increases, the real wages of employees increase. Imagine had we blocked automation way back when. We would now be that third world nation you describe.
The road to prosperity is forward, not backwards as the Dems (the real reactionaries and conservatives) advocate.
However, so far the evidence I have provided shows that Japan was able to go to war with China in the 1870s and 1890s and Imperial Russia in 1904 all without needing to be instructed to do so by the British.
But this doesn't fit in with the racially-biased distortion of history that non-white nations have no capability of self-iniative or ambitions of their own.
Shame on you Molly Bloom for bringing facts into this debate.
A lot of Republicans are not racist, but a lot of racists are Republican.
Originally posted by DarkCloud
The current way that people have been using 'Conservative' is merely a foul appropriation of the correct term.
That doesn't matter. The meaning of words change as people use them differently. The meaning of every word changes with time. The fact that dictionaries must be updated shows this. The dictionary definition for "conservative" is outdated, or was never accurate. You can see that if you look at the definition for "reactionary." "Reactionary" means extreme conservative.
I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh
Originally posted by Ned
As productivity increases, the real wages of employees increase.
Wages are determined by supply and demand in the short run and just supply in the long run, not demand - that is, in a free market. The idea that producivity increases wages has no basis what so ever - and therefore is can not increase wealth for all.
I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh
What Bush says is immaterial when the Arab people and government see that statement for what it truly is, as immaterial and senseless as his plan to send man to Mars or his new immigration propoal (which made tons of sense, but would never get past congress- and bush knew that.) Bush is just plying platitudes on the American people, attempting to gain votes and in the process is misleading.
The Arab people, or just Al Jazeera and that ilk. Or the Western, anti-Bush press that openly questions US "motives?"
Trust me, there are a lot of peoples in the Mid East who truly want democracy and who welcome US support. Just look what happened in Palestine, for example, when Bush stopped the US coddling of that blood-soaked "president" Arafat. We got democracy. But, the Dems were so critical of Bush that they could not even support his disdain of this petty dictator.
In what way do the democrats oppose this?
[Bush's foreign policy efforts to spread democracy.]
Observe how they are treaty Bush's UN ambassador selection.
As far as I can see, they were against bush intervening in Iraq- and as we can see, intervention was done for illegal reasons- Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction and the inspectors were in the nation when war was declared.
Revisionism at its best. The Dems voted in favor of war. Even Kerry voted in favor.
Democrats are also for working with other nations. Working with other nations ensures favorable trade policies. Good relations with other nations ensures that foreigners like americans and they buy american goods, and american culture. Good realtions with other nations means that they'll trade with the US in the future. Now, of course, most nations are pragmatic and they will trade as long as there is a market... However, for how long will they purchase american goods when american goods are increasingly becoming culture-only oriented?? If there is a good popular relationship, then yes, they'll purchase, if not- then they won't and the US economy will suffer.
Decode:
Placing US foreign policy at the mercy of the French who openly advocate an anti-US policy for Europe.
So, the true patriot would seek an international coalition and to play by the rules of the UN instead of setting a terrible precedent for people to disregard the motions of the UN security council.
That was Saddam, not Bush, defying the UN. Do get your facts straight.
As to actions w/o UN authorization, think Clinton and his two wars in the Balkans.
What is the US going to do in 10 years when China invades Taiwan?
Blow the Chinese navy out of the water?
The US has little legal recourse. It already set a precedent of disregarding UN proclamations, and China actually has a claim on the little island.
Bush and the neo-cons have created a terrible foreign policy situation.
Only if, as you openly suggest, that Bush is not for democracy at all, but for American imperialism. The truth though is that the Dems are the one's who oppose every move to greater democracy in the world. It is the Dems who favor the status quo, ending free trade and coddling America's enemies (France, for example).
[q]The United States' time at the top of the world is nearing an end, China and India will soon surpass America- and America (to ensure its economic security), needs to do everything it can to ensure that it retains industrial might to meet their challenge for as long as humanly possible.
[/QUOTE]
When I was a kid, I heard the same thing about the USSR.
Then I heard it about Japan.
Then I heard it about Europe.
Now I hear it about China and India.
I think the left just loves to project high growth rates well into the future without understanding the reasons for growth and why the US always stays ahead. The fact is, though, the future they predict may come true if their anti-free trade policies are in fact enacted.
Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
list of 10 rightists aka a race to the bottom
No. The rightists support progress of mankind towards greater freedom, democracy and human rights. It is the reactionary left who opposes freedom at every level. The true "conservatives" are the people who oppose progress. That is today's left.
On the continuing debate on the origins of WWII: Japan v. China, I don't doubt Japan's aggressive foreign policy. But the major cause of Chinese outrage that lead to the breakout of hostilities at the end of the 20's was Versailles and the give-away of Chinese territory to Japan. Now we all know that Japan would not have been able to get that province without British support, which in fact was given. From the quotes provided by Molly, it appears that Wilson's objections were again "overridden" by Britain so that Britain could reward one of its allies.
No. The rightists support progress of mankind towards greater freedom, democracy and human rights. It is the reactionary left who opposes freedom at every level. The true "conservatives" are the people who oppose progress. That is today's left.
Ned,
I agree that the right supports some forms of progress. For instance, cheaper labor(automation) that increases the owners profits. As a by product it may lower the price of products but that is irrelevant. The idea is to increase profits and the owners charge as much as the market will allow and they pay as little as possible for the workforce and the materials to make the products. On the other hand the right does not want any progress in the realm of social rights for all because there is no profit to be made.
Another area that the right espouses is democracy. Democracy at the barrel of a gun because the right believes that democracy leads to free markets. Free markets lead to profits for the owners. On the other hand, they do not believe in democracy when the nation may democratically choose to have a government that is theocratic, or choose to have a government that seeks to give it's people ownership of their own country. Progress means profit to the right. Profit for the corporations.
The right believes it's more important to spend money to democratize/indoctrinate/pacify Iraq than it is to educate americans. More important than drug and crime prevention. More important than feeding, sheltering, and providing education and jobs to america's poor, jobless, and famished.
Of course, the left wants progress. Progress without families losing their homes because the breadwinner has been laid off and no other job pays enough.
If what you say is true then we would not be trading with China and Russia right now. The right really only supports commerce and power. Everything else is slogans.
What can make a nigga wanna fight a whole night club/Figure that he ought to maybe be a pimp simply 'cause he don't like love/What can make a nigga wanna achy, break all rules/In a book when it took a lot to get you hooked up to this volume/
What can make a nigga wanna loose all faith in/Anything that he can't feel through his chest wit sensation
That doesn't matter. The meaning of words change as people use them differently. The meaning of every word changes with time. The fact that dictionaries must be updated shows this. The dictionary definition for "conservative" is outdated, or was never accurate. You can see that if you look at the definition for "reactionary." "Reactionary" means extreme conservative.
The one thing that is true is that the so-called liberals have been opposing progress for more than a century. They stand solidly against modernization and progress in all forms. We have a very, very strange use of language to suggest that enemies of progress are in favor of change and have a right to call themselves "liberals."
Ned,
I agree that the right supports some forms of progress. For instance, cheaper labor(automation) that increases the owners profits. As a by product it may lower the price of products but that is irrelevant. The idea is to increase profits and the owners charge as much as the market will allow and they pay as little as possible for the workforce and the materials to make the products. On the other hand the right does not want any progress in the realm of social rights for all because there is no profit to be made.
Another area that the right espouses is democracy. Democracy at the barrel of a gun because the right believes that democracy leads to free markets. Free markets lead to profits for the owners. On the other hand, they do not believe in democracy when the nation may democratically choose to have a government that is theocratic, or choose to have a government that seeks to give it's people ownership of their own country. Progress means profit to the right. Profit for the corporations.
The right believes it's more important to spend money to democratize/indoctrinate/pacify Iraq than it is to educate americans. More important than drug and crime prevention. More important than feeding, sheltering, and providing education and jobs to america's poor, jobless, and famished.
Of course, the left wants progress. Progress without families losing their homes because the breadwinner has been laid off and no other job pays enough.
If what you say is true then we would not be trading with China and Russia right now. The right really only supports commerce and power. Everything else is slogans.
The right wants free trade because it allows everyone the opportunity to do well. It does, however, share the lefts concern for people who are temporarily dislocated by job losses, for the incapacitated and for the elderly. But the left stands uniform in its hatred of money and of progress. It will say anything, including lies, that will divert peoples attention away from their agenda of socialism. Socialism is the enemy of free enterprise and of freedom itself.
The right wants free trade because it allows everyone the opportunity to do well. It does, however, share the lefts concern for people who are temporarily dislocated by job losses, for the incapacitated and for the elderly. But the left stands uniform in its hatred of money and of progress. It will say anything, including lies, that will divert peoples attention away from their agenda of socialism. Socialism is the enemy of free enterprise and of freedom itself.
I don't believe socialism or communism has ever been applied in the way it was thought up. So there is no practical example of true socialism working or not working. Socialism might be the enemy of free enterprise but is different from freedom.Freedom and Free Enterprise are just as related as other that use the base free. Free Enterprise, Freefall, Free lunch, Free market, Free base, Freedom, Freedom Fries.
I'm all the left and I love money. How else could I afford my computers, motorcycle, minidv camera, cars and internet porn. I also love the idea of knowing that my tax dollars are spent making america a fair, prosperous, educated, and safe country to live. Not that my tax dollars and military are used to secure resources unrightfully and make the rich, filthy rich.
What can make a nigga wanna fight a whole night club/Figure that he ought to maybe be a pimp simply 'cause he don't like love/What can make a nigga wanna achy, break all rules/In a book when it took a lot to get you hooked up to this volume/
What can make a nigga wanna loose all faith in/Anything that he can't feel through his chest wit sensation
Tweet
Comment