Don't like the snow? You can make a bookmark with the following text instead of a url: javascript:snowStorm.toggleSnow(). Clicking it will toggle the snow on and off.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

The Falkland Islands: Or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Tell Argentina to STFU

1141517192024

Posts

  • V1mV1m Registered User regular
    So, setting aside that all British English people are just born genocidal murderers (my mustache for twirling is coming along slowly but surely) who will gleefully murder innocent sailors by shooting at a hostile battlecruiser during a war (Imagine the headlines; Adm. Nimitz cancels Battle Of The Coral Sea: "Japs weren't heading directly towards us at the time so it seemed wrong to attack them"), perhaps we might return to discussing the future? The geopolitical implications are still there, still evolving, still interesting.

  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    Casual wrote:
    lu tze wrote: »
    ...quite a few Americans refuse to believe they've been the belligerents in any war ever.

    There are very serious issues with the way American history is taught in primary and secondary schools. The first college history class you take obliterates the fantasy.

    Honestly the series James madison led to me researching America's founding more

    I was really disappointed that almost everything I learned in school re: the founders and their grievances with britain was bullshit

    Doctoring history to save national pride is hardly a new thing. I heard that in French schools they're actually taught they won the battle of Waterloo for christs sakes. In the Americans case it's easy to see why they would leave the truth for people who choose to study history at a collage level, you can't really say "whelp kids, our country was kind of founded on a lie". If you want to see what happens when you do that, go read the comments in the cracked article where they go through exactly how the founding fathers fabricated a lot of their grievances. People refuse to believe it and actually get pretty mad.

    Still in the end it's kind of meaningless because the US was simply too big to stay under British control forever. People should just learn to let 300 year old bygones be bygones and study history as it happened.

    The US declaration of independance should really say...

    "As god is my witness, I refuse to pay even a fraction of one penny for my own defence in a war that I've stirred up with the locals!"

    Your puny weapons are useless against me
  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    lu tze wrote:
    It was British units that finally broke the Imperial Guard, leading to a general rout of the French, so I've no idea how you can come to that conclusion.

    Unless routing some units = routing a whole army now. Then yes, Napoleon definitely won Waterloo. /rolling my eyes so hard I'm getting a fucking migraine.

    At the end of the day, it was the allies that held the field... and it was Napoleon who was sent on a little holiday. So no, he didn't win a thing.

    Birtish forces had turned back, and blunted the major french attacks, including the deployment of the imperial guard who had routed. The British forces had then counterattacked, and themselves become overextended and begun to rout. At that point the Prussians arrived. If they had NOT arrived, it would likely have been a draw as while the British would have withdrawn from their attacks and taken heavy casulties, the French were in no state to stage a counter-counter attack on the British positions. The British and French would likeley have both quit the field the next day, and the war would have continued. Napoleon would likely have got the worst of the day overall.

    Your puny weapons are useless against me
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    Is there any other case of a belligerent state making a failed land-grab like Argentina did, and then managing to get sympathy from the knee-jerk liberal Sean Penn set and spin themselves as a victim?

    I have to say in all honesty, it's situations like this that make me a moderate. Just like how Rush Limbaugh's comments make some people go "You know what, I'm not actually a conservative, I don't want to be in the same intellectual/moral/political category as this pompous windbag."

    That's how I feel about this. I can almost convince myself that I am a liberal progressive, and then a liberal progressive does or says something that is just completely repellent, and then they double down on it when criticized.

    Because at the end of the day, I don't want to try to apologize for people like Sean Penn. I'd just rather not even be the same thing he is politically.

    It's best to not blame the entire political persuasion on a single person being an asshole. Sure, there are liberal progressive assholes, it doesn't mean we all are. Not all conservatives or Republicans are lost causes, either. It's better to judge when there are various policies and attitudes from multiple people from different backgrounds then on a single person IMO.

  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    Casual wrote: »
    lu tze wrote: »
    ...quite a few Americans refuse to believe they've been the belligerents in any war ever.

    There are very serious issues with the way American history is taught in primary and secondary schools. The first college history class you take obliterates the fantasy.

    Honestly the series James madison led to me researching America's founding more

    I was really disappointed that almost everything I learned in school re: the founders and their grievances with britain was bullshit

    Doctoring history to save national pride is hardly a new thing. I heard that in French schools they're actually taught they won the battle of Waterloo for christs sakes. In the Americans case it's easy to see why they would leave the truth for people who choose to study history at a collage level, you can't really say "whelp kids, our country was kind of founded on a lie". If you want to see what happens when you do that, go read the comments in the cracked article where they go through exactly how the founding fathers fabricated a lot of their grievances. People refuse to believe it and actually get pretty mad.

    Still in the end it's kind of meaningless because the US was simply too big to stay under British control forever. People should just learn to let 300 year old bygones be bygones and study history as it happened.

    Japan has done this, too.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_history_textbook_controversies

  • poshnialloposhniallo Registered User regular
    Casual wrote: »
    lu tze wrote: »
    ...quite a few Americans refuse to believe they've been the belligerents in any war ever.

    There are very serious issues with the way American history is taught in primary and secondary schools. The first college history class you take obliterates the fantasy.

    Honestly the series James madison led to me researching America's founding more

    I was really disappointed that almost everything I learned in school re: the founders and their grievances with britain was bullshit

    Doctoring history to save national pride is hardly a new thing. I heard that in French schools they're actually taught they won the battle of Waterloo for christs sakes. In the Americans case it's easy to see why they would leave the truth for people who choose to study history at a collage level, you can't really say "whelp kids, our country was kind of founded on a lie". If you want to see what happens when you do that, go read the comments in the cracked article where they go through exactly how the founding fathers fabricated a lot of their grievances. People refuse to believe it and actually get pretty mad.

    Still in the end it's kind of meaningless because the US was simply too big to stay under British control forever. People should just learn to let 300 year old bygones be bygones and study history as it happened.

    Japan has done this, too.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_history_textbook_controversies

    Everyone does this. But when they do, open-minded historians can find other sources, often in other languages, to find out the truth. We have plenty of first-hand accounts of Nanjing, rapes during the occupation of Japan, Boer concentration camps or Guantanamo abuses to read.

    Ender got angry when asked to produce sources or anything more than being sure the Anglos were evil, because I don't think they exist.

    I figure I could take a bear.
  • BagginsesBagginses __BANNED USERS regular
    tbloxham wrote: »
    Casual wrote:
    lu tze wrote: »
    ...quite a few Americans refuse to believe they've been the belligerents in any war ever.

    There are very serious issues with the way American history is taught in primary and secondary schools. The first college history class you take obliterates the fantasy.

    Honestly the series James madison led to me researching America's founding more

    I was really disappointed that almost everything I learned in school re: the founders and their grievances with britain was bullshit

    Doctoring history to save national pride is hardly a new thing. I heard that in French schools they're actually taught they won the battle of Waterloo for christs sakes. In the Americans case it's easy to see why they would leave the truth for people who choose to study history at a collage level, you can't really say "whelp kids, our country was kind of founded on a lie". If you want to see what happens when you do that, go read the comments in the cracked article where they go through exactly how the founding fathers fabricated a lot of their grievances. People refuse to believe it and actually get pretty mad.

    Still in the end it's kind of meaningless because the US was simply too big to stay under British control forever. People should just learn to let 300 year old bygones be bygones and study history as it happened.

    The US declaration of independance should really say...

    "As god is my witness, I refuse to pay even a fraction of one penny for my own defence in a war that I've stirred up with the locals!"

    Actually, while the claimed reason for the tax was covering the war, the British government had already taken the money out colonial government coffers, so it was basically the same as the Bank of America fees: a money grab based on a bullshit excuse.
    Of course, this also ignores the long history of other offenses by the British crown, such as abolishing what elected government there was in the colonies and installing frequently despotic crown governors (the worst offenses were in the birthplace of the revolutionary movement, where the colonial charter, which guaranteed self-rule, was illegally replaced by an appointed governor who evicted the dead from the burying grounds so he could build the Anglican King's Chapel). And then there's the fact that, in response to growing dissatisfaction, the crown sent in troops, who frequently carried the plague, took colonist jobs by moonlighting, and set cities ablaze through poor fire safety precautions.

  • KarlKarl Registered User regular
    Bagginses wrote: »
    tbloxham wrote: »
    Casual wrote:
    lu tze wrote: »
    ...quite a few Americans refuse to believe they've been the belligerents in any war ever.

    There are very serious issues with the way American history is taught in primary and secondary schools. The first college history class you take obliterates the fantasy.

    Honestly the series James madison led to me researching America's founding more

    I was really disappointed that almost everything I learned in school re: the founders and their grievances with britain was bullshit

    Doctoring history to save national pride is hardly a new thing. I heard that in French schools they're actually taught they won the battle of Waterloo for christs sakes. In the Americans case it's easy to see why they would leave the truth for people who choose to study history at a collage level, you can't really say "whelp kids, our country was kind of founded on a lie". If you want to see what happens when you do that, go read the comments in the cracked article where they go through exactly how the founding fathers fabricated a lot of their grievances. People refuse to believe it and actually get pretty mad.

    Still in the end it's kind of meaningless because the US was simply too big to stay under British control forever. People should just learn to let 300 year old bygones be bygones and study history as it happened.

    The US declaration of independance should really say...

    "As god is my witness, I refuse to pay even a fraction of one penny for my own defence in a war that I've stirred up with the locals!"

    Actually, while the claimed reason for the tax was covering the war, the British government had already taken the money out colonial government coffers, so it was basically the same as the Bank of America fees: a money grab based on a bullshit excuse.
    Of course, this also ignores the long history of other offenses by the British crown, such as abolishing what elected government there was in the colonies and installing frequently despotic crown governors (the worst offenses were in the birthplace of the revolutionary movement, where the colonial charter, which guaranteed self-rule, was illegally replaced by an appointed governor who evicted the dead from the burying grounds so he could build the Anglican King's Chapel). And then there's the fact that, in response to growing dissatisfaction, the crown sent in troops, who frequently carried the plague, took colonist jobs by moonlighting, and set cities ablaze through poor fire safety precautions.

    With my admittedly poor knowledge of US history, I'm under the impression that we (and by we I mean the British) were taxing the colonies but they were not allowed any kind of representation in parliament and from I read above, any kind of elected representative at all. Not the smartest of moves really.

    Spoiler:
  • V1mV1m Registered User regular
    Pretty much every nation has, under various guises and excuses, done horribly shitty things due to corruption, self-interest, and so on. I dunno, maybe Tibet didn't? Especially in previous centuries, when attitudes and assumptions were very different to now. If we should be careful of judging our ancestors by present day moral and ethical standards, we should also accept that past crimes do not excuse or justify present ones. Even if the Falklands were originally inhabited by talking unicorns whom the British chopped up and used for fishbait and fireworks, that would have a minimal bearing on the situation now.

  • KageraKagera Imitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered User regular
    Don't cry for Falkland, Argentina

    The truth is they like it without you.
    With all the social healthcare
    and better economy
    you can keep your country
    We prefer the Union Jack.

    My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Karl wrote: »
    Bagginses wrote: »
    tbloxham wrote: »
    Casual wrote:
    lu tze wrote: »
    ...quite a few Americans refuse to believe they've been the belligerents in any war ever.

    There are very serious issues with the way American history is taught in primary and secondary schools. The first college history class you take obliterates the fantasy.

    Honestly the series James madison led to me researching America's founding more

    I was really disappointed that almost everything I learned in school re: the founders and their grievances with britain was bullshit

    Doctoring history to save national pride is hardly a new thing. I heard that in French schools they're actually taught they won the battle of Waterloo for christs sakes. In the Americans case it's easy to see why they would leave the truth for people who choose to study history at a collage level, you can't really say "whelp kids, our country was kind of founded on a lie". If you want to see what happens when you do that, go read the comments in the cracked article where they go through exactly how the founding fathers fabricated a lot of their grievances. People refuse to believe it and actually get pretty mad.

    Still in the end it's kind of meaningless because the US was simply too big to stay under British control forever. People should just learn to let 300 year old bygones be bygones and study history as it happened.

    The US declaration of independance should really say...

    "As god is my witness, I refuse to pay even a fraction of one penny for my own defence in a war that I've stirred up with the locals!"

    Actually, while the claimed reason for the tax was covering the war, the British government had already taken the money out colonial government coffers, so it was basically the same as the Bank of America fees: a money grab based on a bullshit excuse.
    Of course, this also ignores the long history of other offenses by the British crown, such as abolishing what elected government there was in the colonies and installing frequently despotic crown governors (the worst offenses were in the birthplace of the revolutionary movement, where the colonial charter, which guaranteed self-rule, was illegally replaced by an appointed governor who evicted the dead from the burying grounds so he could build the Anglican King's Chapel). And then there's the fact that, in response to growing dissatisfaction, the crown sent in troops, who frequently carried the plague, took colonist jobs by moonlighting, and set cities ablaze through poor fire safety precautions.

    With my admittedly poor knowledge of US history, I'm under the impression that we (and by we I mean the British) were taxing the colonies but they were not allowed any kind of representation in parliament and from I read above, any kind of elected representative at all. Not the smartest of moves really.

    Basically. We didn't care about paying taxes, we just wanted a say in how those taxes were introduced. There are a whole list of grievances in the declaration of independence beyond "we don't want to pay for the French and Indian war".

    Lh96QHG.png
  • FencingsaxFencingsax Bondage Discipline Spider-Man Registered User regular
    V1m wrote: »
    Pretty much every nation has, under various guises and excuses, done horribly shitty things due to corruption, self-interest, and so on. I dunno, maybe Tibet didn't? Especially in previous centuries, when attitudes and assumptions were very different to now. If we should be careful of judging our ancestors by present day moral and ethical standards, we should also accept that past crimes do not excuse or justify present ones. Even if the Falklands were originally inhabited by talking unicorns whom the British chopped up and used for fishbait and fireworks, that would have a minimal bearing on the situation now.

    Tibet's political history is actually kind of... troubling. So nope, everyone is shitty.

    It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it
  • BagginsesBagginses __BANNED USERS regular
    Kagera wrote: »
    Don't cry for Falkland, Argentina

    The truth is they like it without you.
    With all the social healthcare
    and better economy
    you can keep your country
    We prefer the Union Jack.

    Well then, you might have some trouble getting used to the St George's Cross once that comes to pass.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Bagginses, please don't troll our British friends in my thread.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • V1mV1m Registered User regular
    No it's OK, after what we did to those unicorns, we had it coming

  • KarlKarl Registered User regular
    Karl wrote: »
    Bagginses wrote: »
    tbloxham wrote: »
    Casual wrote:
    lu tze wrote: »
    ...quite a few Americans refuse to believe they've been the belligerents in any war ever.

    There are very serious issues with the way American history is taught in primary and secondary schools. The first college history class you take obliterates the fantasy.

    Honestly the series James madison led to me researching America's founding more

    I was really disappointed that almost everything I learned in school re: the founders and their grievances with britain was bullshit

    Doctoring history to save national pride is hardly a new thing. I heard that in French schools they're actually taught they won the battle of Waterloo for christs sakes. In the Americans case it's easy to see why they would leave the truth for people who choose to study history at a collage level, you can't really say "whelp kids, our country was kind of founded on a lie". If you want to see what happens when you do that, go read the comments in the cracked article where they go through exactly how the founding fathers fabricated a lot of their grievances. People refuse to believe it and actually get pretty mad.

    Still in the end it's kind of meaningless because the US was simply too big to stay under British control forever. People should just learn to let 300 year old bygones be bygones and study history as it happened.

    The US declaration of independance should really say...

    "As god is my witness, I refuse to pay even a fraction of one penny for my own defence in a war that I've stirred up with the locals!"

    Actually, while the claimed reason for the tax was covering the war, the British government had already taken the money out colonial government coffers, so it was basically the same as the Bank of America fees: a money grab based on a bullshit excuse.
    Of course, this also ignores the long history of other offenses by the British crown, such as abolishing what elected government there was in the colonies and installing frequently despotic crown governors (the worst offenses were in the birthplace of the revolutionary movement, where the colonial charter, which guaranteed self-rule, was illegally replaced by an appointed governor who evicted the dead from the burying grounds so he could build the Anglican King's Chapel). And then there's the fact that, in response to growing dissatisfaction, the crown sent in troops, who frequently carried the plague, took colonist jobs by moonlighting, and set cities ablaze through poor fire safety precautions.

    With my admittedly poor knowledge of US history, I'm under the impression that we (and by we I mean the British) were taxing the colonies but they were not allowed any kind of representation in parliament and from I read above, any kind of elected representative at all. Not the smartest of moves really.

    Basically. We didn't care about paying taxes, we just wanted a say in how those taxes were introduced. There are a whole list of grievances in the declaration of independence beyond "we don't want to pay for the French and Indian war".

    The American revolution is just one of those moments in British history where I think "well...its our own bloody fault really". It boggles my mind that no one thought "we'll tax them like a borough in england but won't allow them to have an MP in parliament like boroughs in england get" was a bad idea.

    Spoiler:
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Karl wrote: »
    Karl wrote: »
    Bagginses wrote: »
    tbloxham wrote: »
    Casual wrote:
    lu tze wrote: »
    ...quite a few Americans refuse to believe they've been the belligerents in any war ever.

    There are very serious issues with the way American history is taught in primary and secondary schools. The first college history class you take obliterates the fantasy.

    Honestly the series James madison led to me researching America's founding more

    I was really disappointed that almost everything I learned in school re: the founders and their grievances with britain was bullshit

    Doctoring history to save national pride is hardly a new thing. I heard that in French schools they're actually taught they won the battle of Waterloo for christs sakes. In the Americans case it's easy to see why they would leave the truth for people who choose to study history at a collage level, you can't really say "whelp kids, our country was kind of founded on a lie". If you want to see what happens when you do that, go read the comments in the cracked article where they go through exactly how the founding fathers fabricated a lot of their grievances. People refuse to believe it and actually get pretty mad.

    Still in the end it's kind of meaningless because the US was simply too big to stay under British control forever. People should just learn to let 300 year old bygones be bygones and study history as it happened.

    The US declaration of independance should really say...

    "As god is my witness, I refuse to pay even a fraction of one penny for my own defence in a war that I've stirred up with the locals!"

    Actually, while the claimed reason for the tax was covering the war, the British government had already taken the money out colonial government coffers, so it was basically the same as the Bank of America fees: a money grab based on a bullshit excuse.
    Of course, this also ignores the long history of other offenses by the British crown, such as abolishing what elected government there was in the colonies and installing frequently despotic crown governors (the worst offenses were in the birthplace of the revolutionary movement, where the colonial charter, which guaranteed self-rule, was illegally replaced by an appointed governor who evicted the dead from the burying grounds so he could build the Anglican King's Chapel). And then there's the fact that, in response to growing dissatisfaction, the crown sent in troops, who frequently carried the plague, took colonist jobs by moonlighting, and set cities ablaze through poor fire safety precautions.

    With my admittedly poor knowledge of US history, I'm under the impression that we (and by we I mean the British) were taxing the colonies but they were not allowed any kind of representation in parliament and from I read above, any kind of elected representative at all. Not the smartest of moves really.

    Basically. We didn't care about paying taxes, we just wanted a say in how those taxes were introduced. There are a whole list of grievances in the declaration of independence beyond "we don't want to pay for the French and Indian war".

    The American revolution is just one of those moments in British history where I think "well...its our own bloody fault really". It boggles my mind that no one thought "we'll tax them like a borough in england but won't allow them to have an MP in parliament like boroughs in england get" was a bad idea.

    You live, you learn, you get devolution. I tell you though, it'd be much more convenient for ME if we'd had a more amiable breakup.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • BagginsesBagginses __BANNED USERS regular
    Bagginses, please don't troll our British friends in my thread.

    I just found the statement funny given how things are going in Scotland.

  • lu tzelu tze Registered User
    edited March 2012
    Bagginses wrote: »
    Bagginses, please don't troll our British friends in my thread.

    I just found the statement funny given how things are going in Scotland.
    And how exactly are things going in Scotland?

    My ancestors fought and died for Scottish independence, so however the vote goes, things are a lot better now than they ever were you smug goose.

    lu tze on
    World's best janitor
  • BagginsesBagginses __BANNED USERS regular
    lu tze wrote: »
    Bagginses wrote: »
    Bagginses, please don't troll our British friends in my thread.

    I just found the statement funny given how things are going in Scotland.
    And how exactly are things going in Scotland?

    My ancestors fought and died for Scottish independence, so however the vote goes, things are a lot better now than they ever were you smug goose.

    Things are going toward independence, meaning that there's a chance that the union will be over and the Jack therefor retired.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    There's a thread for Scottish Independence talk, this is about rockhopper penguins and their imperialistic oppressors.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • Alistair HuttonAlistair Hutton Dr EdinburghRegistered User regular
    Karl wrote:
    Karl wrote: »
    Bagginses wrote: »
    tbloxham wrote: »
    Casual wrote:
    lu tze wrote: »
    ...quite a few Americans refuse to believe they've been the belligerents in any war ever.

    There are very serious issues with the way American history is taught in primary and secondary schools. The first college history class you take obliterates the fantasy.

    Honestly the series James madison led to me researching America's founding more

    I was really disappointed that almost everything I learned in school re: the founders and their grievances with britain was bullshit

    Doctoring history to save national pride is hardly a new thing. I heard that in French schools they're actually taught they won the battle of Waterloo for christs sakes. In the Americans case it's easy to see why they would leave the truth for people who choose to study history at a collage level, you can't really say "whelp kids, our country was kind of founded on a lie". If you want to see what happens when you do that, go read the comments in the cracked article where they go through exactly how the founding fathers fabricated a lot of their grievances. People refuse to believe it and actually get pretty mad.

    Still in the end it's kind of meaningless because the US was simply too big to stay under British control forever. People should just learn to let 300 year old bygones be bygones and study history as it happened.

    The US declaration of independance should really say...

    "As god is my witness, I refuse to pay even a fraction of one penny for my own defence in a war that I've stirred up with the locals!"

    Actually, while the claimed reason for the tax was covering the war, the British government had already taken the money out colonial government coffers, so it was basically the same as the Bank of America fees: a money grab based on a bullshit excuse.
    Of course, this also ignores the long history of other offenses by the British crown, such as abolishing what elected government there was in the colonies and installing frequently despotic crown governors (the worst offenses were in the birthplace of the revolutionary movement, where the colonial charter, which guaranteed self-rule, was illegally replaced by an appointed governor who evicted the dead from the burying grounds so he could build the Anglican King's Chapel). And then there's the fact that, in response to growing dissatisfaction, the crown sent in troops, who frequently carried the plague, took colonist jobs by moonlighting, and set cities ablaze through poor fire safety precautions.

    With my admittedly poor knowledge of US history, I'm under the impression that we (and by we I mean the British) were taxing the colonies but they were not allowed any kind of representation in parliament and from I read above, any kind of elected representative at all. Not the smartest of moves really.

    Basically. We didn't care about paying taxes, we just wanted a say in how those taxes were introduced. There are a whole list of grievances in the declaration of independence beyond "we don't want to pay for the French and Indian war".

    The American revolution is just one of those moments in British history where I think "well...its our own bloody fault really". It boggles my mind that no one thought "we'll tax them like a borough in england but won't allow them to have an MP in parliament like boroughs in england get" was a bad idea.

    The British also made a critical mis-step when they passed the Quebec act that stated that Catholics were real people too. That rather inflamed sentiment in the colonies against Britain.

    I have a thoughtful and infrequently updated blog about games http://whatithinkaboutwhenithinkaboutgames.wordpress.com/

    I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.

    Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
  • Dis'Dis' Registered User regular
    Bagginses wrote: »
    lu tze wrote: »
    Bagginses wrote: »
    Bagginses, please don't troll our British friends in my thread.

    I just found the statement funny given how things are going in Scotland.
    And how exactly are things going in Scotland?

    My ancestors fought and died for Scottish independence, so however the vote goes, things are a lot better now than they ever were you smug goose.

    Things are going toward independence, meaning that there's a chance that the union will be over and the Jack therefor retired.

    Considering there was no problem continuing to use the Irish saltire on the union jack, and being British we do what the fuck we like with symbols (unlike the US with their uptight Flag Code, the Union Jack isn't even the legally mandated flag), I think you're just being silly.

  • BagginsesBagginses __BANNED USERS regular
    Dis' wrote: »
    Bagginses wrote: »
    lu tze wrote: »
    Bagginses wrote: »
    Bagginses, please don't troll our British friends in my thread.

    I just found the statement funny given how things are going in Scotland.
    And how exactly are things going in Scotland?

    My ancestors fought and died for Scottish independence, so however the vote goes, things are a lot better now than they ever were you smug goose.

    Things are going toward independence, meaning that there's a chance that the union will be over and the Jack therefor retired.

    Considering there was no problem continuing to use the Irish saltire on the union jack, and being British we do what the fuck we like with symbols (unlike the US with their uptight Flag Code, the Union Jack isn't even the legally mandated flag), I think you're just being silly.

    Huh, I always thought that they just used Ulster as an excuse to keep it.

  • CasualCasual Ho Ho Ho Flap Flap Flap Registered User regular
    poshniallo wrote: »
    Casual wrote: »
    lu tze wrote: »
    ...quite a few Americans refuse to believe they've been the belligerents in any war ever.

    There are very serious issues with the way American history is taught in primary and secondary schools. The first college history class you take obliterates the fantasy.

    Honestly the series James madison led to me researching America's founding more

    I was really disappointed that almost everything I learned in school re: the founders and their grievances with britain was bullshit

    Doctoring history to save national pride is hardly a new thing. I heard that in French schools they're actually taught they won the battle of Waterloo for christs sakes. In the Americans case it's easy to see why they would leave the truth for people who choose to study history at a collage level, you can't really say "whelp kids, our country was kind of founded on a lie". If you want to see what happens when you do that, go read the comments in the cracked article where they go through exactly how the founding fathers fabricated a lot of their grievances. People refuse to believe it and actually get pretty mad.

    Still in the end it's kind of meaningless because the US was simply too big to stay under British control forever. People should just learn to let 300 year old bygones be bygones and study history as it happened.

    Japan has done this, too.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_history_textbook_controversies

    Everyone does this. But when they do, open-minded historians can find other sources, often in other languages, to find out the truth. We have plenty of first-hand accounts of Nanjing, rapes during the occupation of Japan, Boer concentration camps or Guantanamo abuses to read.

    Ender got angry when asked to produce sources or anything more than being sure the Anglos were evil, because I don't think they exist.

    I think we can agree that any version of history where one side is portrayed as good, right and just and the other side as faceless, inhuman evildoers is probably a load of crap. The American elementary school version of their own history is no exception. You'd think people would be able to figure this out with common sense seeing how life is pretty much lived in the grey area between black and white, but no, they can't.

    i write amazing erotic fiction

    its all about anthropomorphic dicks doing everyday things like buying shoes for their scrotum-feet
  • lu tzelu tze Registered User
    Bagginses wrote: »
    Things are going toward independence, meaning that there's a chance that the union will be over and the Jack therefor retired.
    I think it's cute that you feel the need to explain this to me.

    I also think it's cute that in a thread where you've been doing your best to decry Evil British Imperialism(tm), that you'd make a smug comment about Scotland being allowed to secede peacefully if they choose.

    World's best janitor
  • LorctheOrcLorctheOrc Registered User regular
    He's a bigoted goose, that's all

  • Dis'Dis' Registered User regular
    Bagginses wrote: »
    Dis' wrote: »
    Bagginses wrote: »
    lu tze wrote: »
    Bagginses wrote: »
    Bagginses, please don't troll our British friends in my thread.

    I just found the statement funny given how things are going in Scotland.
    And how exactly are things going in Scotland?

    My ancestors fought and died for Scottish independence, so however the vote goes, things are a lot better now than they ever were you smug goose.

    Things are going toward independence, meaning that there's a chance that the union will be over and the Jack therefor retired.

    Considering there was no problem continuing to use the Irish saltire on the union jack, and being British we do what the fuck we like with symbols (unlike the US with their uptight Flag Code, the Union Jack isn't even the legally mandated flag), I think you're just being silly.

    Huh, I always thought that they just used Ulster as an excuse to keep it.

    Hahaha oh my no. Are you one of those people who think the early twentieth century UK governments wanted to keep Northern Ireland? Out of the sheer mustache twirling evil of their imperialistic hearts?

  • V1mV1m Registered User regular
    edited March 2012
    lu tze wrote: »
    Bagginses wrote: »
    Things are going toward independence, meaning that there's a chance that the union will be over and the Jack therefor retired.
    I think it's cute that you feel the need to explain this to me.

    I also think it's cute that in a thread where you've been doing your best to decry Evil British Imperialism(tm), that you'd make a smug comment about Scotland being allowed to secede peacefully if they choose.

    You say "allowed" - there is probably a higher percentage of people in England who'd like to dissolve the union than there are in Scotland. It's just that a fair number of those don't think it would be very good for Scotland. And now: Back to the Falklands.

    Come to think of it, the Viscount Of Falkland after whom the Islands are named was Scottish*. Let's introduce the concept of ceding them to Scotland after Scottish independence. How about that?


    *Anglophobes invariably conflate British imperialism with English imperialism. But Scotsmen were enthusiastic participants at all levels of the project.

    V1m on
  • CptKemzikCptKemzik Registered User regular
    V1m wrote: »
    *Anglophobes invariably conflate British imperialism with English imperialism. But Scotsmen were enthusiastic participants at all levels of the project.

    People tend to conflate British anything as equivalent to English if they're not particularly attentive to foreign affairs, history, or geography. England is arguably the most prominent component of British-ness but many seem to forget that Britain is actually comprised of three countries.

    Well.. nobody really cares about Wales so I guess that omission can be forgivable.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    CptKemzik wrote: »
    V1m wrote: »
    *Anglophobes invariably conflate British imperialism with English imperialism. But Scotsmen were enthusiastic participants at all levels of the project.

    People tend to conflate British anything as equivalent to English if they're not particularly attentive to foreign affairs, history, or geography. England is arguably the most prominent component of British-ness but many seem to forget that Britain is actually comprised of three countries.

    Well.. nobody really cares about Wales so I guess that omission can be forgivable.

    To be fair to the rest of us, the English spent a good bit of time making us think that.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • BagginsesBagginses __BANNED USERS regular
    lu tze wrote: »
    Bagginses wrote: »
    Things are going toward independence, meaning that there's a chance that the union will be over and the Jack therefor retired.
    I think it's cute that you feel the need to explain this to me.

    I also think it's cute that in a thread where you've been doing your best to decry Evil British Imperialism(tm), that you'd make a smug comment about Scotland being allowed to secede peacefully if they choose.

    Hey, you're the one who decided to act like I was saying that the vote going one way would cause Scotland to burn down or some shit. I'm still trying to figure out why you brought your ancestors into this. People saying that losing Scotland would be the end of Great Britain isn't exactly a new analysis.
    Dis' wrote: »
    Bagginses wrote: »
    Dis' wrote: »
    Bagginses wrote: »
    lu tze wrote: »
    Bagginses wrote: »
    Bagginses, please don't troll our British friends in my thread.

    I just found the statement funny given how things are going in Scotland.
    And how exactly are things going in Scotland?

    My ancestors fought and died for Scottish independence, so however the vote goes, things are a lot better now than they ever were you smug goose.

    Things are going toward independence, meaning that there's a chance that the union will be over and the Jack therefor retired.

    Considering there was no problem continuing to use the Irish saltire on the union jack, and being British we do what the fuck we like with symbols (unlike the US with their uptight Flag Code, the Union Jack isn't even the legally mandated flag), I think you're just being silly.

    Huh, I always thought that they just used Ulster as an excuse to keep it.

    Hahaha oh my no. Are you one of those people who think the early twentieth century UK governments wanted to keep Northern Ireland? Out of the sheer mustache twirling evil of their imperialistic hearts?

    I thought they were using the excuse to not have to replace all the flags, which would be kind of expensive. Losing Scotland, on the other hand, would leave England, some Scots in the north of Ireland, and whatever Wales is (shut up, not even the Welsh care). Of course, the impression that the UK was trying to take everything over isn't exactly unfounded, as the early 20th century was when Britain's colonialism devolved into kleptomania. It kept pissing off the Persian government by trying to expand the area of de facto British control into parts with no oil.

  • lu tzelu tze Registered User
    edited March 2012
    Bagginses wrote: »
    Hey, you're the one who decided to act like I was saying that the vote going one way would cause Scotland to burn down or some shit. I'm still trying to figure out why you brought your ancestors into this. People saying that losing Scotland would be the end of Great Britain isn't exactly a new analysis.
    My point, which has sailed cleanly over your head, is that whatever the decision no one is going to die for it.

    I think the fact that these questions of secession can be seriously brought up without fear of civil war shows that we've come a long way as a nation, and it also shows that the people hinting that the Falklands are some kind of last gasp exercise in imperialism are a set of ignorant fuckwits.

    lu tze on
    World's best janitor
  • BagginsesBagginses __BANNED USERS regular
    lu tze wrote: »
    Bagginses wrote: »
    Hey, you're the one who decided to act like I was saying that the vote going one way would cause Scotland to burn down or some shit. I'm still trying to figure out why you brought your ancestors into this. People saying that losing Scotland would be the end of Great Britain isn't exactly a new analysis.
    My point, which has sailed cleanly over your head, is that whatever the decision no one is going to die for it.

    I think the fact that these questions of secession can be seriously brought up without fear of civil war shows that we've come a long way as a nation, and it also shows that the people hinting that the Falklands are some kind of last gasp exercise in imperialism are a set of ignorant fuckwits.

    Good thing I never said that. Actually, the fact that any mention of separation gets this response is actually the first evidence I've seen that this is a real worry, so thanks for letting me know that everyone in the UK is going to die.

  • lu tzelu tze Registered User
    Okay, I'm having real trouble understanding how you can be this fucking dense, because you're reading exactly the opposite of what I'm writing... like there's a giant NOT gate on your comprehension centres or something.

    I'm saying it isn't a worry.

    World's best janitor
  • BagginsesBagginses __BANNED USERS regular
    lu tze wrote: »
    Okay, I'm having real trouble understanding how you can be this fucking dense, because you're reading exactly the opposite of what I'm writing... like there's a giant NOT gate on your comprehension centres or something.

    I'm saying it isn't a worry.

    Yes, but the fact that you keep bringing it up unprovoked makes one worry. It's like the proper response to exchange "You know, this is my first time flying and I'm kind of edgy" "shut up, there's no bomb, how dare you suggest there's a bomb:" "Wait, WHAT? There's a bomb, isn't there?"

  • V1mV1m Registered User regular
    OK fine, the day the Union is dissolved it's gonna be Glencoe all over again all over the place. We Englishmen all got emails about it a couple of months ago and we've bought our longswords and advance train tickets to Berwick. Don't spoil it for everyone by voting "no", please. (Those tickets are non refundable).

    Happy now?

    So: Falklands.

  • lu tzelu tze Registered User
    Bagginses wrote: »
    Yes, but the fact that you keep bringing it up unprovoked makes one worry. It's like the proper response to exchange "You know, this is my first time flying and I'm kind of edgy" "shut up, there's no bomb, how dare you suggest there's a bomb:" "Wait, WHAT? There's a bomb, isn't there?"
    You're the one who brought it up, all my posts on the matter are in direct response to your smug ignorant bullshit...

    World's best janitor
  • CasualCasual Ho Ho Ho Flap Flap Flap Registered User regular
    lu tze wrote: »
    Bagginses wrote: »
    Yes, but the fact that you keep bringing it up unprovoked makes one worry. It's like the proper response to exchange "You know, this is my first time flying and I'm kind of edgy" "shut up, there's no bomb, how dare you suggest there's a bomb:" "Wait, WHAT? There's a bomb, isn't there?"
    You're the one who brought it up, all my posts on the matter are in direct response to your smug ignorant bullshit...

    He's a goose. You're feeding him. Literally everyone else in the thread already knows you're right except bagginses, and as you've pointed out he's too dense/obstinate/Anglophobic to be talked round with any combination of words in the English language.

    i write amazing erotic fiction

    its all about anthropomorphic dicks doing everyday things like buying shoes for their scrotum-feet
  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    Casual wrote: »
    lu tze wrote: »
    Bagginses wrote: »
    Yes, but the fact that you keep bringing it up unprovoked makes one worry. It's like the proper response to exchange "You know, this is my first time flying and I'm kind of edgy" "shut up, there's no bomb, how dare you suggest there's a bomb:" "Wait, WHAT? There's a bomb, isn't there?"
    You're the one who brought it up, all my posts on the matter are in direct response to your smug ignorant bullshit...

    He's a goose. You're feeding him. Literally everyone else in the thread already knows you're right except bagginses, and as you've pointed out he's too dense/obstinate/Anglophobic to be talked round with any combination of words in the English language.

    Just like an Anglo to insist on only using English. It shouldn't even be called English. It should be American as there are more native speakers here. Calling it English just helps keep Elizabeth's Imperial Jackboot on former colonies' throats.

Sign In or Register to comment.