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...
You're going to have to show me where I said anything besides the fact that the Union Jack won't be accurate when Scotland leaves the Union.
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.
Of course, of course. Any combination of words in the Anglo-American-Canadian-Australian-New Zealander-Irish-(fuck, am I missing anyone out?)-ish language. How culturally insensitive of me.
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.
The language is called English because it was created in England. America's numbers don't mean shit.
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.
The language is called English because it was created in England. America's numbers don't mean shit.
I think your sarcasm detector is on the blink there.
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...
You're going to have to show me where I said anything besides the fact that the Union Jack won't be accurate when Scotland leaves the Union.
Scotland aren't leaving the Union. The logistics of such a thing would be massive, and lets be honest, the SNP aren't up to the task if any recent interviews is anything to go by.
Take Currency. The SNP have said they're going to keep the Pound. Lets think about that for a second and how much that does not make sense.
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...
You're going to have to show me where I said anything besides the fact that the Union Jack won't be accurate when Scotland leaves the Union.
Scotland aren't leaving the Union. The logistics of such a thing would be massive, and lets be honest, the SNP aren't up to the task if any recent interviews is anything to go by.
Take Currency. The SNP have said they're going to keep the Pound. Lets think about that for a second and how much that does not make sense.
You realize that countries don't necessarily need to have their own currency, right?
Like right now, Iceland is looking at adopting the Canadian dollar due to their economic issues.
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...
You're going to have to show me where I said anything besides the fact that the Union Jack won't be accurate when Scotland leaves the Union.
Do you have any points relevant to this discussion at all or are you just here to threadshit?
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...
You're going to have to show me where I said anything besides the fact that the Union Jack won't be accurate when Scotland leaves the Union.
Scotland aren't leaving the Union. The logistics of such a thing would be massive, and lets be honest, the SNP aren't up to the task if any recent interviews is anything to go by.
Take Currency. The SNP have said they're going to keep the Pound. Lets think about that for a second and how much that does not make sense.
You realize that countries don't necessarily need to have their own currency, right?
Like right now, Iceland is looking at adopting the Canadian dollar due to their economic issues.
I'm actually with Redcoat. There's no way any country is going to look at the Eurozone and think "yes, I want that." Not even Ron Paul is that insane.
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...
You're going to have to show me where I said anything besides the fact that the Union Jack won't be accurate when Scotland leaves the Union.
Scotland aren't leaving the Union. The logistics of such a thing would be massive, and lets be honest, the SNP aren't up to the task if any recent interviews is anything to go by.
Take Currency. The SNP have said they're going to keep the Pound. Lets think about that for a second and how much that does not make sense.
You realize that countries don't necessarily need to have their own currency, right?
Like right now, Iceland is looking at adopting the Canadian dollar due to their economic issues.
Iceland looking at adopting the Canadian dollar is a different process to Scotland gaining independence but keeping the Pound? Maybe?
I find it very odd that a country that is wanting independence from England, is going to potentially have its currency controlled by the bank of England. There's the issue of a country's credit rating and economy; I can't see how a Scottish pound could maintain the same value as an English pound.
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...
You're going to have to show me where I said anything besides the fact that the Union Jack won't be accurate when Scotland leaves the Union.
Scotland aren't leaving the Union. The logistics of such a thing would be massive, and lets be honest, the SNP aren't up to the task if any recent interviews is anything to go by.
Take Currency. The SNP have said they're going to keep the Pound. Lets think about that for a second and how much that does not make sense.
You realize that countries don't necessarily need to have their own currency, right?
Like right now, Iceland is looking at adopting the Canadian dollar due to their economic issues.
Iceland looking at adopting the Canadian dollar is a different process to Scotland gaining independence but keeping the Pound? Maybe?
I find it very odd that a country that is wanting independence from England, is going to potentially have its currency controlled by the bank of England. There's the issue of a country's credit rating and economy; I can't see how a Scottish pound could maintain the same value as an English pound.
but there's already scottish pounds? same value as an english pound with the added confusion of seeing whoever you give it to look at it with a look of utter bewilderment.
GaryO on
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
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...
You're going to have to show me where I said anything besides the fact that the Union Jack won't be accurate when Scotland leaves the Union.
Scotland aren't leaving the Union. The logistics of such a thing would be massive, and lets be honest, the SNP aren't up to the task if any recent interviews is anything to go by.
Take Currency. The SNP have said they're going to keep the Pound. Lets think about that for a second and how much that does not make sense.
You realize that countries don't necessarily need to have their own currency, right?
Like right now, Iceland is looking at adopting the Canadian dollar due to their economic issues.
Iceland looking at adopting the Canadian dollar is a different process to Scotland gaining independence but keeping the Pound? Maybe?
I find it very odd that a country that is wanting independence from England, is going to potentially have its currency controlled by the bank of England. There's the issue of a country's credit rating and economy; I can't see how a Scottish pound could maintain the same value as an English pound.
but there's already scottish pounds? same value as an english pound with the added confusion of seeing whoever you give it to look at it with a look of utter bewilderment.
Wrong. They're both Great British Pounds. Some are printed BoE, som BoS, but they're the same currency. It's like the US state quarters sort of but now that I've typed that out not really.
More like the Euro then? It's the same currency but they have different pictures on the back side with some national emblem or whatever on them based on where they were printed (coined?).
More like the Euro then? It's the same currency but they have different pictures on the back side with some national emblem or whatever on them based on where they were printed (coined?).
Technically Scottish bank notes are not legal tender anywhere in Britian (Scotland included), but, equally as technically, English Bank notes above £5 in value are not legal tender in Scotland either.
They can get fucked. No international court will take it seriously.
Argentina has repeatedly refused offers to have international courts rule on the issue, probably because they're well aware of the inevitable result.
Everything that comes from their direction is just noise at this point. How long are they going to play this game before they realize no amount of foot stomping and arm swinging will get them what they want?
For as long as they think it might get them something.
It's not like it really costs them anything much, and they might get some concessions out of it so why not? And of course there are the domestic politics involved ( see also US sanctions vs Cuba)
Steerable drilling is pretty standard these days. Wells will often be much farther horizontally from the drilling rig than they are vertically. You hear stories about drilling heads that lose pose (lose track of where they are), and come up out of the ground miles from the rig operating them.
If the old military government signed whatever deal that was, I have much less problem with them nationalising it. If one of the newer, "democratically elected" (except for the fraud that I am sure occurred) governments made the deal and now this one is breaking it, that is not so good but still somewhat understandable.
If the old military government signed whatever deal that was, I have much less problem with them nationalising it. If one of the newer, "democratically elected" (except for the fraud that I am sure occurred) governments made the deal and now this one is breaking it, that is not so good but still somewhat understandable.
They can get fucked. No international court will take it seriously.
Argentina has repeatedly refused offers to have international courts rule on the issue, probably because they're well aware of the inevitable result.
Everything that comes from their direction is just noise at this point. How long are they going to play this game before they realize no amount of foot stomping and arm swinging will get them what they want?
I dont think they actually want (or at least expect) to gain sovereignty over the Islands. They would have to deal both with an unwilling local populace, and with an extremely pissed off England. I think this whole shebang (both the renewed interest in the Falklands and the recent nationalization of YPF) are designed to stir up Argentinan support for Kirchner and to help her blame her country's social and economic ills on foreign enemies (pretty standard rethoric: I'm the good one! I want to take back our land and our resources from those imperialist!)
healraga on
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
They can get fucked. No international court will take it seriously.
Argentina has repeatedly refused offers to have international courts rule on the issue, probably because they're well aware of the inevitable result.
Everything that comes from their direction is just noise at this point. How long are they going to play this game before they realize no amount of foot stomping and arm swinging will get them what they want?
I dont think they actually want (or at least expect) to gain sovereignty over the Islands. They would have to deal both with an unwilling local populace, and with an extremely pissed off England. I think this whole shebang (both the renewed interest in the Falklands and the recent nationalization of YPF) are designed to stir up Argentinan support for Kirchner and to help her blame her country's social and economic ills on foreign enemies (I'm the good one! I want to take back our land and our resources from those imperialist!)
They can get fucked. No international court will take it seriously.
Argentina has repeatedly refused offers to have international courts rule on the issue, probably because they're well aware of the inevitable result.
Everything that comes from their direction is just noise at this point. How long are they going to play this game before they realize no amount of foot stomping and arm swinging will get them what they want?
I dont think they actually want (or at least expect) to gain sovereignty over the Islands. They would have to deal both with an unwilling local populace, and with an extremely pissed off England. I think this whole shebang (both the renewed interest in the Falklands and the recent nationalization of YPF) are designed to stir up Argentinan support for Kirchner and to help her blame her country's social and economic ills on foreign enemies (I'm the good one! I want to take back our land and our resources from those imperialist!)
That and they want a share in the oil revenue.
Pretty much. They, as every other government in the world, love money in all the ways they can get them. If they can implement something which will give them BOTH popular support, and increased revenue then it isnt that much of a surprise that they will try it. Sure, it will destroy investor confidence in the short term, but if they are able to resist the initial shockwaves then maybe in the long term it will prove benefical for them.
Or it can also horribly backfire and become a cesspool of corruption and nepotism, but we will have to see.
healraga on
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
They can get fucked. No international court will take it seriously.
Argentina has repeatedly refused offers to have international courts rule on the issue, probably because they're well aware of the inevitable result.
Everything that comes from their direction is just noise at this point. How long are they going to play this game before they realize no amount of foot stomping and arm swinging will get them what they want?
I dont think they actually want (or at least expect) to gain sovereignty over the Islands. They would have to deal both with an unwilling local populace, and with an extremely pissed off England. I think this whole shebang (both the renewed interest in the Falklands and the recent nationalization of YPF) are designed to stir up Argentinan support for Kirchner and to help her blame her country's social and economic ills on foreign enemies (I'm the good one! I want to take back our land and our resources from those imperialist!)
That and they want a share in the oil revenue.
Pretty much. They, as every other government in the world, love money in all the ways they can get them. If they can implement something which will give them BOTH popular support, and increased revenue then it isnt that much of a surprise that they will try it. Sure, it will destroy investor confidence in the short term, but if they are able to resist the initial shockwaves then maybe in the long term it will prove benefical for them.
Or it can also horribly backfire and become a cesspool of corruption and nepotism, but we will have to see.
Well, there's not much to see since the UK isn't going to give them shit (rightly so) on the Falkland. With the YPF thing, eh probably won't help in the long run or short run. Silly Kirchner.
They can get fucked. No international court will take it seriously.
Argentina has repeatedly refused offers to have international courts rule on the issue, probably because they're well aware of the inevitable result.
Everything that comes from their direction is just noise at this point. How long are they going to play this game before they realize no amount of foot stomping and arm swinging will get them what they want?
I dont think they actually want (or at least expect) to gain sovereignty over the Islands. They would have to deal both with an unwilling local populace, and with an extremely pissed off England. I think this whole shebang (both the renewed interest in the Falklands and the recent nationalization of YPF) are designed to stir up Argentinan support for Kirchner and to help her blame her country's social and economic ills on foreign enemies (I'm the good one! I want to take back our land and our resources from those imperialist!)
That and they want a share in the oil revenue.
Pretty much. They, as every other government in the world, love money in all the ways they can get them. If they can implement something which will give them BOTH popular support, and increased revenue then it isnt that much of a surprise that they will try it. Sure, it will destroy investor confidence in the short term, but if they are able to resist the initial shockwaves then maybe in the long term it will prove benefical for them.
Or it can also horribly backfire and become a cesspool of corruption and nepotism, but we will have to see.
Well, there's not much to see since the UK isn't going to give them shit (rightly so) on the Falkland. With the YPF thing, eh probably won't help in the long run or short run. Silly Kirchner.
Yeah I wasnt talking about the Falklands, its a given that the UK isnt going to budge and I doubt the current leadership of Argentina is eager to start a war.
They can get fucked. No international court will take it seriously.
Argentina has repeatedly refused offers to have international courts rule on the issue, probably because they're well aware of the inevitable result.
Everything that comes from their direction is just noise at this point. How long are they going to play this game before they realize no amount of foot stomping and arm swinging will get them what they want?
I dont think they actually want (or at least expect) to gain sovereignty over the Islands. They would have to deal both with an unwilling local populace, and with an extremely pissed off England. I think this whole shebang (both the renewed interest in the Falklands and the recent nationalization of YPF) are designed to stir up Argentinan support for Kirchner and to help her blame her country's social and economic ills on foreign enemies (I'm the good one! I want to take back our land and our resources from those imperialist!)
That and they want a share in the oil revenue.
Pretty much. They, as every other government in the world, love money in all the ways they can get them. If they can implement something which will give them BOTH popular support, and increased revenue then it isnt that much of a surprise that they will try it. Sure, it will destroy investor confidence in the short term, but if they are able to resist the initial shockwaves then maybe in the long term it will prove benefical for them.
Or it can also horribly backfire and become a cesspool of corruption and nepotism, but we will have to see.
Well, there's not much to see since the UK isn't going to give them shit (rightly so) on the Falkland. With the YPF thing, eh probably won't help in the long run or short run. Silly Kirchner.
Not really. As long as the situation remains as it is she can handwave away any domestic issues with "But La Malvinas! See the filthy English bogeymen! Ignore your problems and hate
them!"
Posts
You're going to have to show me where I said anything besides the fact that the Union Jack won't be accurate when Scotland leaves the Union.
Of course, of course. Any combination of words in the Anglo-American-Canadian-Australian-New Zealander-Irish-(fuck, am I missing anyone out?)-ish language. How culturally insensitive of me.
The language is called English because it was created in England. America's numbers don't mean shit.
I think your sarcasm detector is on the blink there.
Scotland aren't leaving the Union. The logistics of such a thing would be massive, and lets be honest, the SNP aren't up to the task if any recent interviews is anything to go by.
Take Currency. The SNP have said they're going to keep the Pound. Lets think about that for a second and how much that does not make sense.
You realize that countries don't necessarily need to have their own currency, right?
Like right now, Iceland is looking at adopting the Canadian dollar due to their economic issues.
Do you have any points relevant to this discussion at all or are you just here to threadshit?
I'm actually with Redcoat. There's no way any country is going to look at the Eurozone and think "yes, I want that." Not even Ron Paul is that insane.
Iceland looking at adopting the Canadian dollar is a different process to Scotland gaining independence but keeping the Pound? Maybe?
I find it very odd that a country that is wanting independence from England, is going to potentially have its currency controlled by the bank of England. There's the issue of a country's credit rating and economy; I can't see how a Scottish pound could maintain the same value as an English pound.
but there's already scottish pounds? same value as an english pound with the added confusion of seeing whoever you give it to look at it with a look of utter bewilderment.
Wrong. They're both Great British Pounds. Some are printed BoE, som BoS, but they're the same currency. It's like the US state quarters sort of but now that I've typed that out not really.
Technically Scottish bank notes are not legal tender anywhere in Britian (Scotland included), but, equally as technically, English Bank notes above £5 in value are not legal tender in Scotland either.
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.
http://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/132881/hiberno-britannic-politics-soon-to-be-hiberno-caledoni-anglowelsh-politics-stay-tuned/p62
and
http://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/152550/secession-of-the-scots/p3
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-17390911
Argentina has repeatedly refused offers to have international courts rule on the issue, probably because they're well aware of the inevitable result.
Everything that comes from their direction is just noise at this point. How long are they going to play this game before they realize no amount of foot stomping and arm swinging will get them what they want?
It's not like it really costs them anything much, and they might get some concessions out of it so why not? And of course there are the domestic politics involved ( see also US sanctions vs Cuba)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17739204
Is it really being a dick when they just want control over their own resources?
Steerable drilling is pretty standard these days. Wells will often be much farther horizontally from the drilling rig than they are vertically. You hear stories about drilling heads that lose pose (lose track of where they are), and come up out of the ground miles from the rig operating them.
Must. Not. Bite....
I'm talking about nationalizing YPF, not fighting over the Falkland island.
It was Menem.
I dont think they actually want (or at least expect) to gain sovereignty over the Islands. They would have to deal both with an unwilling local populace, and with an extremely pissed off England. I think this whole shebang (both the renewed interest in the Falklands and the recent nationalization of YPF) are designed to stir up Argentinan support for Kirchner and to help her blame her country's social and economic ills on foreign enemies (pretty standard rethoric: I'm the good one! I want to take back our land and our resources from those imperialist!)
That and they want a share in the oil revenue.
Pretty much. They, as every other government in the world, love money in all the ways they can get them. If they can implement something which will give them BOTH popular support, and increased revenue then it isnt that much of a surprise that they will try it. Sure, it will destroy investor confidence in the short term, but if they are able to resist the initial shockwaves then maybe in the long term it will prove benefical for them.
Or it can also horribly backfire and become a cesspool of corruption and nepotism, but we will have to see.
Well, there's not much to see since the UK isn't going to give them shit (rightly so) on the Falkland. With the YPF thing, eh probably won't help in the long run or short run. Silly Kirchner.
Yeah I wasnt talking about the Falklands, its a given that the UK isnt going to budge and I doubt the current leadership of Argentina is eager to start a war.
But yeah, silly Kirchner
Ah. Good job I didn't bite then.
Not really. As long as the situation remains as it is she can handwave away any domestic issues with "But La Malvinas! See the filthy English bogeymen! Ignore your problems and hate
them!"