Tagaziel

The poster offers mixed advice, some of it is fine (be polite, respectful, and avoid antagonizing the police), which is useful in life in general, and some of it gives the impression of being designed to be obnoxious to the police officer. It may be an artefact of U.S. popular culture, though, with its anti-governmental vibe. I can only report positive encounters with police officers, though they were generally limited in scope, since I play my life safe (especially when I drive).

Using an American to fight an American. 'murica, fook yah.

Found the rest of the drawings: http://vk.com/album137084706_159512338 #33 is my favourite.

Matryoshka soldat. A platoon in every troop!

In modern Russia you don't have booty. You have Pootyn.

We understand. We don't judge you. Even if you're married. On topic, how to make your wife happy: Buy her a barbell with weights. She's been at it for four months now. Love the fact she has a hobby. Maybe even I'll pick up some muscle on those flabby* arms of mine. * - While I am used to carrying heavy loads, I seem to have permanently thin arms. Which kind of looks hilarious considering I have massive legs.

You're right. He doesn't have the apathy and indifference permeating the society. Maybe he's an immigrant, desperately trying to fit in?

I'm currently making my way through Asimov's Currents of Space after reading Harris' Fatherland. Both books tickle me in the right places. Innuendo aside, anyone got recommendations for alternative history books? Apart from Harry Turtledove?

I am well aware of the main point of drinking games. However, I was referring to the ancillary points of drinking games and games in general: Not dying.

See, it's apparent you don't realize that Ruś is a region, not synonymous with Russia. And if you're so hung up on names, I assume you also believe the Soviet Union was an actual Union with equality between participating states, rather than a de facto empire steered by Moscow? You're basically using equivocation to back up your point, which is, y'know, a logical fallacy. Which never materialized, y'know? Here's your Grand Duchy of Rus. Oh wait, it never existed because Russia invaded the Commonwealth. Probably based on the misguided notion that everyone in a land named Rus must be a Russian. Oh, so now the geographic region of Ruś is the sole property of Russia because of equivocation? Do tell me more. Holy crap, you have no idea what you're talking about. In 1399, Poland and Lithuania were already joined together by personal union. For fourteen years. The battle of Vorskla river ended Vyatutas' ambitions at independence from Władysław II Jagiełło. It wasn't a defeat that forced Lithuania into Poland's arms, the union happened under different geopolitical circumstances and for a different reason. Furthermore, since you are so fond of linking to Wikipedia in lieu of an argument, will you continue to ignore the fact that the principalities of Ruś were Mongol bitches for two centuries? That includes your beloved Moscow, which was sacked and burned down by them in 1382, three years before Lithuania threw its lot in with Poland. Except Moscow never played the role of unificator until it arbitrarily decided to do so much later. In the 19th century. Look up panslavism. It didn't exist as a concept at the time of the wars, which were fought for political reasons, to undermine Polish-Lithuanian hegemony in the region. Or maybe it's the centuries of war and strife with the Russia, often provoked by Russia itself, which culminated in the rape of Poland in the late 18th century and erasing it from the map for 123 years. 123 years of brutal occupation and subjugation of Polish people, suppressing uprisings, looting the lands, retarding their infrastructural and economic development. Then, after Poland threw off the yoke, trying to invade it in 1920 (and getting your arse kicked six ways to Sunday, which nearly, but sadly ultimately not, killed Stalin's career), then teaming up with Nazi Germany as best buddies and invading Poland in 1939, ethnic cleansing of occupied regions, mass executions of the Polish elite, and other such niceties. After it turns out Nazis aren't their best buddies, reluctantly agreeing to Polish armies being reformed from gulag prisoners sent there by Stalin to die. And, of course, not properly supplying them because they're Poles. Then, after Anders goes "**** that ****" and joins up with the Brits in the Middle East after leaving the USSR through Iran, forming another Polish army under strict Soviet supervision and using it to install a puppet government in Poland to create a vassal state. And then occupying it for over 44 years, retarding its infrastructural, economical, and societal development, resulting in long lasting consequences that still echo to this day. So yeah, we have reasons to dislike Russian imperialism. I have nothing against Russians, but I do have issues with the Russian state, or rather, tsardom Putin is creating. Sure, exploiting the problematic Polish-Russian relations is totally not the reason for the National Unity Day, when you celebrate the ejection of Polish occupation forces from Moscow. Nor were they used as a political tool by countless rulers in Russian history, most notably the Romanow dynasty.

If that's the way that was received, then I phrased it badly. Those were two separate points, though I wasn't trying to say that Stalin was more or less evil than Hitler. Both were the dregs of humanity and murdering psychopaths.

You do realize the point of a drinking game is not dying of liver failure?

How delightfully British of you.

I know, I was being facetious. But the state of the Russian military does explain why oby's so desperate to improve his mood by posting agitprop on the forums.

I don't think there's an inherent contradiction between stating that evil is evil and pointing out that Stalin's score beats Hitler's. That said, I'd contest your theory of an objective measure of degree of evilness, as this can lead to bizarre results, such as declaring Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge less evil than Stalin or Hitler, because they killed less people in the course of their terror. As such, I simply cannot support using such a measure. Evil is evil. We can debate on the exact definition of what is evil, but not on whether one totalitarian regime is less evil than another simply because it killed less people or that the people it ruined the lives of and abused survived (eg. the prisoners in Soviet gulags). Note that I wasn't advocating excusing imperial abuse. If a woman is raped and the child she bears brings value and happiness in her life, should the rape be excused? No, it should not.

We will get the ending we deserve, but not the one we need.

Isn't the usual Russian Federation strategy focusing on Zerg rushing opponents?

Yes, and if they do fit the legal category of genocide, then it should be registered as such. The issue of the degree to which the Holodomor was intentional is debated, but the fact that it was caused and at least partially directed by the Soviet brass is, well, a fact. I'd stay focused on topic, though, which concerns 20th century atrocities. The Mongols were some of the most brutal and even genocidal forces in history, with a massive body count, and can easily be used to dismiss more recent crimes. You already see oby's trying to dismiss Stalin's systematic terror and mass killings by both reducing the kill count and dismissing it by stating that at least he wasn't worse than the British Empire. I'd argue that he was. For starters, Stalin's regime was a totalitarian one, equal or even worse than Hitler's. It instituted total terror, systematic ethnic and class cleansing through deportations or outright murder, a psychosis of fear throughout the Union, and so on and so forth. Hell, without Stalin's cooperation with Nazi Germany, World War II wouldn't have happened. Trying to argue the relative evilness of totalitarian regimes based on their kill counts is simply stupid. Totalitarianism, colonialism, imperialism, all doctrines that reject fundamental human rights are evil and we should not try to differentiate their levels of villainy. What we can, however, is analyze their long term impact. In this case, while India suffered and that's undeniable, it also eventually became one of the world's fastest developing economies, like many other British Colonies. Nazi Germany's short adventure (12 years) led to a brutal confrontation with its World War I legacy and to the emergence of the modern German state, the hegemon of Europe. By comparison, Soviet Union and its various interpretations of communism eventually led to economical meltdowns, widespread destruction of society, retardation of development in all fields, and general misery. Hell, you have a case study in the form of West/East Germany, comparing how a model communist state fares in comparison with a fundamentally capitalist, democratic country. Bottom line: We should judge on the merits alone, not their relative comparisons.

Nope. Lithuania was never a part of Rus, it was a distinct political and ethnic group separate from the tribes of the east, just like the Balts, Poles, and so on and so forth. You might want to check your history book if it doesn't't contain Uncle Joe's portrait. Regardless, if anything, you should read up on history yourself. Moscow and Russia were alternately Mongol allies or Mongol victims. the political union between Lithuania and Poland wasn't borne out of desperation due to the Golden Horde's victories. At the time, the future King Władysław made a peace pact with the Mongols, while Moscow was put under firm control of the Tatars. Because, y'know, they kicked their ass once, but then got steamrolled and crushed. It's interesting that you're surprised that nations and states want to achieve greater and greater heights of power. Apparently Poland is bad because it had imperial ambitions (and de facto was an empire), while Russia is good, despite having the same ambitions. Maybe it's some kind of complex, since Russia was kicked around by various empires, with brief interludes of power, until Piotr I came around and slapped everyone with his enormous **** and forced the country to westernize. By the way, the wars with Poland weren't wars for the crown. They were wars for supremacy that eventually culminated in a three-way partition of my nation by 1795. Which was not achieved through overt force, but by manipulating the nobility into selling out their country. I can't say you don't like variety, though. Katarzyna II took Poland apart with Prussia and Austria using subterfuge, then Stalin decided to take it apart with Hitler using brute force. Hey, maybe all that butthurt is caused by neo-imperial Soviet Russia getting its ass kicked in 1920 by a barely reconstituted Poland and then falling apart after Poland was the first state to break away from the Soviets in 1989. Gee, no wonder you have issues.

Wut? Eastern Europeans don't began killing each other because this tiny bro'wars. It's all about who is main brother in family, all of them want play same role in case of win. Meanwhile Irish-British relation is totally different, it's all about British supremacism and systematic extermination of Irish people, they even don't considered as humans by Britts. In East Europe never exist nothing similar and such (many centuries long) anti-Russian resistance as in Ireland never exist also . Also don't exist IRA analogs here. Because that's totally different from Russian supremacism and the systematic extermination of lesser peoples, both during the Tsar years (annexation and abuse of Poland come to mind, not to mention dozens of other nations and states) and during the Soviet Union years (whose genocidal policies and bodycount put Hitler to shame). Russia wasn't a brother, it was a bully. A bully with severe issues, like the butthurt it suffers to this day when Poland kicked its ass and installed its own Tsar in Moscow. Which is a world record.

What went before is not ended yet. Or you think Irish people just forgot genocide by Britt's during XVII-XIX centuries, or concentration camps, killings and other **** performed by Britt's in Northern Ireland by Thatcher's government? Anyway reasons caused Irish terrorism is not disappeared and this mean terror is not yet over. So I assume you wouldn't mind if Ukrainians, Poles, Lithuanians, Belarussians, Latvians, Estonians, Fins, Czechs, Slovaks, Germans, and every other nation that suffered because of the Soviet Union started randomly killing Russians? By your logic, that's perfectly reasonable. Especially when you consider the genocide program in the Ukraine or the mass murders of Poles. And that's just the 20th century!

Oh, oby. I'm pretty sure a country that has murdered millions as part of social engineering and is busy ruining it's already laughable human rights ratings is in a position to criticize the U.S. I wonder why Putin continues the pretense of democracy. It'd be easier if he just declared himself Tsar and declared the Empire of Russia reborn.

A game set during or immediately prior to World War I, focusing on the Great Game and giving the player the ability to influence events and create an alternate timeline where eg. the German Empire never loses the war or the October Revolution never takes place. That's a severely underrepresented period and could benefit from Obsidian's steady hand.

Dropping Perlman in favor of a voiced main character... Nope, smells faker than the meat they use in McD's.