Gandorian

we value our allies and honor our treaties. In defense of The Syndicate, we declare war on Acadia.

Good example of why it's a good idea to invest more in purchasing cities than purchasing too much infra in each city.

Kudos for Shakyr for bringing this to everyone's attention. It would have affected more people as the game continues to grow. There really wasn't a reason not to have officially posted the rule in the changelog before. Alex does an excellent job here, but this is an example of a player bringing to his attention the need clarify an issue. Why some people here feel the need to chastise someone for bringing this issue to the attention of others (especially Alex) to be clarified through an official announcement doesn't make much sense. The only "whining" being done here is those who somehow believe Shakyr is being a "meanie" to Alex and missing the original point that was made. Now there has been an official announcement and everyone should be on the same page.

So how about the Indians winning game 1 of the World Series, 6-0 over the Cubs?

It is incorrect to say that we "sought to change terms of the arrangement". We (tC and Alpha) both agreed to the $30 million payment in the peace agreement. We held up to our end of the peace agreement by ending all hostilities. You simply did not hold up your end of the agreement by actually making the payment or give a date of when you would pay it. On October 16, Aurelius told you we understood your extensive rebuilding costs, so we would be happy to wait until November 1 for payment. Instead of asking to pay it at a later date because of your financial issues, or accepting that particular date, you felt the need to post it here and incorrectly state we tried changing terms. Again, that is just not true. We already agreed to the peace terms...$30 million. Common sense dictates that the time frame for the $30 million wouldn't be indefinite, so we gave you a reasonable date to fulfill your part of the peace agreement. You obviously find the date reasonable as well so we are happily in agreement. Feel free to do an alliance bank to bank transfer or you can send the $30 million to either Aurelius or myself as a 1 unit food trade for $30 million as mentioned in your post. Once we receive the money, we can then donate it as our alliance begins our new tC donation program.

Welcome to the fray CS. Have fun!

I thought the same thing. Good luck with your new alliance!

Which reminds me of a chart that may help...

I certainly agree that it's in the eye of the beholder. From my perspective, the age of the alliance as well as the length the members (especially leaders) have been in the alliance stand out. I also believe activity and communication within the alliance are essential in creating a solid "established" alliance. Having a foundation set of good diplomacy as well as experience in warfare are keep components as well.

The President's vocabulary and command of the English language is about as important as his physical appearance when it comes to actual governing. It has nothing to do with the important issues I listed above- poverty, income inequality, jobs and debt. All of which have been worse under Obama. Ignoring important facts on important issues by deflecting to "command of the English language" is simply rhetoric. Dignity is subjective and I'll disagree there too. Obama raised the top income tax rate from 35% to 39.6% and raised investment income rates, yet income inequality...increased. Again...the economic numbers from percentage of american's employed, poverty, debt...they are all worse, but yes...Wall Street has thrived more during Obama's years in office than Bush's. Just look at the numbers. Deflecting about Bush going to war for his "oil holdings" is just, well....non-existent. I don't like debating by going off topic, which was the Obama economy has been worse than the Bush economy. Neither were good, but since you brought up Bush's war for oil....Here are direct quotes from leading democrats such as President and Hillary Clinton, Al Gore etc about why we needed to go to war in Iraq. By no means does this validate that is was the right thing to do, but it refutes the folly narrative that we went to war for Bush's "oil holdings". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5p-qIq32m8

I didn't say you did praise Obama. I simply pointed out that the man you criticized for being so bad wasn't as bad as his successor who you did not criticize. Obama did "undo" some tax deals by raising the top income tax bracket, yet income inequality is worse. Spin it any way you want, but when poverty is worse every year under Obama than any year under Bush, less percentage of Americans employed and debt much higher than it was before he took office...Obama and his "cronies" have been worse than the evil Darth Bush. Speaking of Wall Street, that's been the primary benefactor of the Obama Presidency. So yeah...Wall Street has been better under Obama than Bush.

Income inequality is worse under Obama than it was under his predecessor. Poverty has been worse every year under Obama than it was in any year under his predecessor. Today, a less percentage of Americans are employed than when Obama took office. You can complain about Bush all you want, but if he was bad, Obama has been worse.

I disagree with Sanders on just about every issue, but I have to give him credit for being about as genuine as a politician can get. That being said, here's three statements he's made that shows just how stupid the man really is... He said he can't understand why student loan rates are higher than mortgage and car loan rates. (Student loans aren't backed with any collateral) He said the first thing he will do as President is have "his" Supreme Court overturn Citizen United. (SCOTUS isn't "his". It's a separate branch of government that only rules on cases it decides to hear and rule on) He says there aren't enough jobs for Americans with college degrees, but wants to make college "free". (He obviously doesn't comprehend the concept of supply and demand)

Congratulations and good luck!

Having update at 8PM instead of 3AM is certainly preferable to myself. I assume most east coast U.S. players would agree.

Thanks everyone. We appreciate it.

My thoughts and prayers are with you Daniel. Our PnW community stands with you.

If Rubio can get through Super Tuesday, there's a good chance he will be the nominee. Though Sanders has done much better than most would have thought, I do not see him beating Clinton.

Rubio consistently polls well when matched up with the potential Democratic nominee. No Republican can win without at least 35% of the Hispanic vote and Rubio has a better chance than any other Republicans to get that. As soon as a few of the others drop out (especially Bush) the money will flow even more Rubio's way as he will be the only establishment candidate left standing. If Clinton wouldn't have won all six coin flips last night and each would have won half, Sanders would have won Iowa. The Sanders people are livid, especially considering he'll probably win the first primary...N.H.

Smart move adding more projects. Thanks Sheepy!

-You can call whoever you want, and you really don't need to worry about any defamation case against you...lol. I do highly suggest you look into legalities of defamation quite a bit more. My son is an attorney and TBH, he laughed. - Below is a direct quote from which your article cited that the article I linked to debunked by showing it does happen. Again, this is what my original post refuted, but instead of accepting it you went on some diatribe about the authors writing. "Conservative Media Outlets Have Promoted Bogus Bathroom Stories. Numerous conservative media outlets, including The Daily Caller, WND, and the Media Research Center, have similarly promoted the myth that sexual predators will exploit trans-inclusive restrooms to prey upon women. [Equality Matters, 8/19/13, 8/22/13, 2/3/14]" -First you say the article is slanderous or liable and now you say what was written really happened and is serious. Your all over the place. Once again....I refuted your link's hypothetical supposed myths with reality- nothing more, nothing less. -I link to two additional articles reporting the same thing by two different writers, including a left-winger (of course Huffpo is left-wing) and a writer reporting news in Toronto's Star and you still dwell on the "right-wing" bloggers credentials. Of course you are deflecting and it's almost comical when your admitting the report is true. -Debate your position all you want about the issue of transgender equality, but this specific debate with me about my article directly refuting yours is obviously futile on your part.

-In your attempt to look intelligent in your first paragraph, you must have forgot the fact that slander is oral defamation, not written. Libel is written defamation and must include a false statement that is injurious. It wasn't false and no injury was caused because of it. -You shouldn't "just skim" an article if you are going to use it to attempt to prove a point. -I read your entire article as well as the one I linked to. You should do the same. -Trying to spin who wrote the article I linked to isn't going to work. In fact I'll link to a different article about the same incident from "left-wing" Huffpo and Toronto's The Star, which quoted Toronto police officer, Victor Kwong who spoke about it. Also, it was posted a day before the City News article you just added. -Your attempt to try an deflect, chastising the author of the article I linked to didn't work. The incident happened, the authorities are investigating and the school took action. Edited to add links: Toronto's, The Star article Huffington article

You might want to go back and re-read my post and the article you linked to. I specifically refuted the mediamatters article which featured a picture of a sign that read "Gender Neutral Restroom". The link I posted also featured a picture of a sign reading "Gender Neutral Restroom" and it refuted (through reality) the supposed myth in the article you linked to. Complaining about a bias article (while ironically citing mediamatters yourself), instead of accepting the substance (it actually happened despite your link saying it was a myth) doesn't help your argument. Simply put...the article I cited debunked the myth argument from the article you cited with reality instead of opinion. No more, no less.

To directly refute the media matters bathroom theory with reality. http://www.dailywire.com/news/330/university-toronto-dumps-transgender-bathrooms-pardes-seleh

Congratulations to all!