A New EB Tavern

[Ayce]

Yeah, it's the liberal yellow-blue, but I wasn't expecting them to do a parade like that, they're supposed to be more of an upper class party, but with Tăriceanu at it's head, it kind of sunk. (not like PD-L is any better with Zeus as it's unofficial head-honcho )

[cmacq]

So what passes for a liberal in Romania nowadays?

[Ibrahim]

Yeah, it's the liberal yellow-blue, but I wasn't expecting them to do a parade like that, they're supposed to be more of an upper class party, but with Tăriceanu at it's head, it kind of sunk. (not like PD-L is any better with Zeus as it's unofficial head-honcho )

ZEUS? ok.... and I thought american political parties have..problems...
so what is PD-L and the liberals in Romania about?

catchy poem romano-dacis! I can imagine italians saying it the same way too (I can't help but notice that they sound alike)

[Ayce]

Well, Zeus is how the members of the PD-L refer to our „dear” president Traian Băsescu.

The PD-L (Democrats/Democrat-Liberal Party) is the most migrationary large party in our politics, going from social-democracy to an unofficial combination between christian-democratic and liberal values in 3 years. It's a merger between the PD and the PLD, that split from the PNL (they don' admit it,but it was to join the PD). Lack of internal democracy within the party is worrying, and they are nicknamed the „presidential party”, they are no longer in government, but have control over the secret services via the president (who btw managed to set fire to 37 cargo ships on the Seine when he was a commercial navy captain ).

PNL (Liberals/National Liberal Party) form a minority government, not really popular due to both ex-PD subversive actions and it's own inability to provide good men for the ministries. Tăriceanu, chief liberal and prime-minister broke both his legs in 2 different motorcycle accidents during his mandate .

PSD (Social Democratic Party) are now in opposition, their leadership is kind of fragmented, but they are still the 2nd rated party, and they (still) have some capable men.

PC (Conservative Party), low in polls, they may have good ideas, but are a bit undecided on how much to the right they are, they are in an electoral alliance with PSD.

PRM (Greater Romania Party), nationalists, but economically are center-left, went down on polls, leader constantly says polls are rigged, brought down the nationalist group within the European Parliament when Andreea Mussolini insulted Romanians.

UDMR (Democratic Union of Hungarians in Romania), „representing” the Hungarian minority, have been in every government since 1989.

So what passes for a liberal in Romania nowadays?

Theoretically the standard right-wing liberal, but after what Puiu Haşotti said during the NATO Summit („If we must have order, we will commit a minor injustice” aka excessive police repression during the summit) I'm not so sure anymore. We lack a Social Liberal party. We only have rightist liberal parties.

[Maion Maroneios]

We have salami with brânză and onion if you want.

Hmmmm, sounds GOOD Maybe some feta cheese also?

[Ayce]

Hmmmm, sounds GOOD Maybe some feta cheese also?

Here you go: http://www.ladonna.ro/product_images..._greceasca.jpg

[Gebeleisis]

im feeling cozy around here seeing more romanians gather :D

[Ayce]

Gebe, you must be glad Dinamo won, now CFR is sure to take the championship. I'm just happy Steaua won't win

[Hooahguy]

boooooost!!!!!

[Emperor Burakuku]

No boost for me!

[Ibrahim]

so the romanian democracy is (no offense intended) a farce?

[russia almighty]

Seems like it has French gov't post Napoleon syndrome really bad.


How the hell does a right liberal work? Right economically? Right Socially?

[cmacq]

Right,

just to cheer it up in here, a little poem...

Tell Them What They Want To Hear
Concealed on timbers perched high above their heads, were intertwined the always watchful sight of Ohum’s subtle threads.
And faintly now, a mark here and there on twisted grains denote a cruel hint of this old rogue’s intent.
Hither, an unstrung bow with jagged darts strode by, and yonder a knotty club soundly held sauntered just beyond the eye, as amber chains clattered ever after.
If truth were never spoke, these countless golden ties bond kicking throngs that pulled, begged, and burled each mortal plight, into one distorted cord.
For extended, each treasured link ran back from every ear and in due course, affixed the mighty dulcet ring that pierced Ohum’s silver tongue.
For as it’s often told, that with a steady tug he heaps a never ending queue of human souls, to stave the Otherworld’s infernal cold.
Sent here to serve as warmth and light, chopped up as kindling, sat upon the hearth, and in the end consumed...

as firewood stokes the need and a hellish flame burns bright.

[Romano-Dacis]

Gebe, you must be glad Dinamo won, now CFR is sure to take the championship. I'm just happy Steaua won't win

No way man, Armata Ultra for life!!

[Dhampir]

If the Seven Years' War is, as Churchill wrote, the first world-wide war. Then the Crimean War is the second. Then WWI is WWIII and WWII is WWIV.

Suck it, Hitler, you're 4th best.

[cmacq]

What about the American Rev.; North America, Europe, Africa, and Asia? That would make it number 5. It would be WWII?

[Dhampir]

What about the American Rev.; North America, Europe, Africa, and Asia? That would make it number 5. It would be WWII?

Most of the "international" conflict was naval warfare and the seizure of a few islands. Nothing really on the scale of the British conquest of France's colonies in Senegal and India.

[Maion Maroneios]

Here you go: http://www.ladonna.ro/product_images..._greceasca.jpg

Great man, thnx a bunch!!!
*sits on a nearby table with his salad and ouzo and starts eating*

[cmacq]

Most of the "international" conflict was naval warfare and the seizure of a few islands. Nothing really on the scale of the British conquest of France's colonies in Senegal and India.

So the Ameri-Rev. wasn't and the Crimean War was?

[Hooahguy]

neither were, IMO. a world war has to encompass most of the world for it to be one, or a war between two superpowers that spans the globe.

[Ayce]

Ibrahim: So-so, but at least it's not (yet) a 2 party dictatorship. A few mandates with the new uninominal voting system should get us there.

russia allmighty: right-wing liberalism is the original, it's r-w economy.

Romano-Dacis: Hey, after I graduate, I've got 5-10 years of work with Paszkany guaranteed on all those Trigranit funded construction projects (including the last stage of the Esplanada)

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

RO: https://img182.imageshack.us/img182/...dinzecend0.jpg
EN: https://img398.imageshack.us/img398/...zecend0rm9.jpg

[Dhampir]

So the Ameri-Rev. wasn't and the Crimean War was?

The Crimean War had significant land fighting in the Baltic, in the Kamchatka Peninsula in Asiatic Russia, in the White Sea, and in Asia Minor aside from the Crimean peninsula.

[Dhampir]

neither were, IMO. a world war has to encompass most of the world for it to be one, or a war between two superpowers that spans the globe.

Britain and France fighting across the world (N. America, Europe, Africa, India, SE Asia) isn't a war between two superpowers that spanned the globe?

Britain/France fighting the Russian Empire across the world (Crimea, Baltic, Asia Minor, North Pacific) isn't a war between superpowers that spanned the globe?

[Hooahguy]

u got a point....

[Romano-Dacis]

C'mon, we imperialist Romanians have to stand our ground: it ain't a world war until we're involved!!

I wouldn't classify a world war by how or where it's fought, but more so by the results from it. As such, I wouldn't qualify the Crimean War (which resolved pretty much nothing) or the Seven Year's War (once again, no result, the maps of Europe were redrawn ante bellum) as World Wars. In my book a World War needs to involve two or more superpowers, span at least two continents, and have a decisive outcome where the balance of power is evidently shifted. None of this "but after the 7 years war Britain gained this and France gained that" crap. Unless one of the major warring parties is completely annihilated from the diplomatic field (as happened in WW1 and WW2) it is not significant enough in the global balance of power to be a world war.

I would classify Alexander's campaign against the Persians, or all three Punic wars combined as world wars however, had Rome and Macedonia been superpowers (relative to their time). In these wars, the loser was decisively annihilated, the winner took control of vast swathes of land and resources, and was left largely unchallenged in their domain. These conflicts also spanned two continents (Europe and Asia, and Europe and Africa respectively). However, the fact that these weren't two superpowers going head-to-head means these wars also fail on their classification. At the time Macedonia was no more powerful than a Thracian confederacy and Rome was no more powerful than the Gauls.

[Dhampir]

C'mon, we imperialist Romanians have to stand our ground: it ain't a world war until we're involved!!

I wouldn't classify a world war by how or where it's fought, but more so by the results from it. As such, I wouldn't qualify the Crimean War (which resolved pretty much nothing) or the Seven Year's War (once again, no result, the maps of Europe were redrawn ante bellum) as World Wars. In my book a World War needs to involve two or more superpowers, span at least two continents, and have a decisive outcome where the balance of power is evidently shifted. None of this "but after the 7 years war Britain gained this and France gained that" crap. Unless one of the major warring parties is completely annihilated from the diplomatic field (as happened in WW1 and WW2) it is not significant enough in the global balance of power to be a world war.

You have wars that took place within a 100 square mile area that would qualify as a world war by your definition.

[Ibrahim]

to say the seven years war changed nothing is incorrect; looking at a map of north america and India in 1755, and the same in 1763 would clearly demonstrate that. most changes were to areas outside of Europe, and all over the world. also the costs of the war led to the UK taxing the 13 colonies which led to the Am-rev. France's aid incurred debts ion itself, and theat helped spark the french revolution, Napoleon, and all that jazz. the experiance in turn pushed Germany and Italy towards unification, and the collapse of spanish control in the war due to occupation caused the control of its colonies in south America to go downhill. meanwhile the spirit of independance from the Am-rev in the US actually ignited the Slavery issue as early as 1787, which helped fuel sectionalism and the civil war, which caused some Irish to form a brigade, that scared the canadians and convince the British to form the Dominion of Canada, to help in self defence, ut also bowing down to pressure from canadians wanting independance before the civil war......

and it goes on and on..you should see what happened in Asia...
the point is that all history is interelated. nothing is really insignificant. even a war that appears to change nothing actually can change alot.

[Emperor Burakuku]

Butterfly Effect...

[Ayce]

You guys forgot the aim of the war, in both world wars, the aim (of the attacker) was to deal a heavy blow (or annihilation) that would result in an unconditional surrender.

You can also tell by the amount of money the financiers of the war made.

[Emperor Burakuku]

Don't you wanna make a thread? I mean I like this tavern the way it is! And I hate modern history! Joking guys. Except the last part. BTW anyone willing to discuss something related to ancient/medieval history?