by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

Search

Search

[+] Advanced...

Author:

Region:

Sort:

«12. . .8,3698,3708,3718,3728,3738,3748,375. . .12,59512,596»

Franco-British-American Empire wrote:The Spanish were worse
Gave us siesta time, corporal punishment against children which is still in place today, and other bad habits.
Not to mention the fact they only cared about the galleon trade
Didn't bother to build us up, not even teach us Spanish until the late period leading up to the Americans
The Latin Americans had better rights than us

Yeah the Spanish were horrible, they just took land, didnít even care to modernise it, thatís why their empire fell. Along with many other things, of course.

Orange Creek wrote:Ah, let's not go there. We were only debating the economics of things.

Uh
Sorry xd

Middle Vers wrote:And the black community in America say they're being "oppressed". I imagine what it's like for the Filipino.

Barely surviving
Too much bills

And bad conditions all year round

Socialist States of Ludistan wrote:Yeah the Spanish were horrible, they just took land, didnít even care to modernise it, thatís why their empire fell. Along with many other things, of course.

That's why Mexico had a hard time keeping it's Northern territories in check.
Mostly since no one lived there and it was fuc*ing hard to travel without any developed railways

Colligny

Middle Vers wrote:And the black community in America say they're being "oppressed". I imagine what it's like for the Filipino.

That's maybe a step or 246 too far, but okay.

Socialist States of Ludistan wrote:Yeah the Spanish were horrible, they just took land, didnít even care to modernise it, thatís why their empire fell. Along with many other things, of course.

I wish the Phillipines were at least treated like Latin America

Educated, some modernisation and less harsh treatment

Franco-British-American Empire wrote:Barely surviving
Too much bills

And bad conditions all year round

Gas is 3 dollars.
I liked it better when it was 1.70

So, I think we can all agree on the definitions of first and third world countries.

So what, then, constitutes a second world country?

I believe it to be former communist states of the USSR, their satellite states (not all), or nations within that sphere of influence.

What about you guys?

Shadow Dealer wrote: That's why Mexico had a hard time keeping it's Northern territories in check.
Mostly since no one lived there and it was fuc*ing hard to travel without any developed railways

Yeah, The only people up North were the Natives that clashed with Mexico and the US during the Apache Wars.

Middle Vers wrote:Gas is 3 dollars.
I liked it better when it was 1.70

I remember about a year ago the oil situation in Mťxico got bad that the police had to use bikes to travel around.

Middle Vers wrote:Gas is 3 dollars.
I liked it better when it was 1.70

My parents used to tell me of a time when the Philippines actually had a better economy than Japan and Singapore
And when you could buy candy for 5 cents or something.

Before Marcos

Franco-British-American Empire wrote:I wish the Phillipines were at least treated like Latin America

Educated, some modernisation and less harsh treatment

Sadly no, the Spanish were never known for their fair treatment.

Middle Vers wrote:And the black community in America say they're being "oppressed". I imagine what it's like for the Filipino.

People often forget how lucky they are, Iím just happy that I was born in Denmark, not everyone can grow up in such a modernised country.

Untecna wrote:So, I think we can all agree on the definitions of first and third world countries.

So what, then, constitutes a second world country?

I believe it to be former communist states of the USSR, their satellite states (not all), or nations within that sphere of influence.

What about you guys?

Yeah that has been the traditional definition

Colligny

Untecna wrote:So, I think we can all agree on the definitions of first and third world countries.

So what, then, constitutes a second world country?

I believe it to be former communist states of the USSR, their satellite states (not all), or nations within that sphere of influence.

What about you guys?

Well, 1st world was Capitalist nations.
3rd was Socialist.
2nd was just Neutral Nations.

Shadow Dealer wrote: I remember about a year ago the oil situation in Mťxico got bad that the police had to use bikes to travel around.

They must have really gotten a lot of exercise.

Untecna wrote:So, I think we can all agree on the definitions of first and third world countries.

So what, then, constitutes a second world country?

I believe it to be former communist states of the USSR, their satellite states (not all), or nations within that sphere of influence.

What about you guys?

I consider second world countries as middle-class countries
Not rich
Not too poor

Colligny wrote:Well, 1st world was Capitalist nations.
3rd was Socialist.
2nd was just Neutral Nations.

I think it was actually third world countries during the Cold War that were considered neutral.

Shadow Dealer wrote: That's why Mexico had a hard time keeping it's Northern territories in check.
Mostly since no one lived there and it was fuc*ing hard to travel without any developed railways

Back then people didnít care for the future, but who am I kidding, that hasnít changed.

Franco-British-American Empire wrote:My parents used to tell me of a time when the Philippines actually had a better economy than Japan and Singapore
And when you could buy candy for 5 cents or something.

Before Marcos

P o g
5 cents.

Middle Vers wrote:They must have really gotten a lot of exercise.

Yup, I find it funny just thinking of a angry police man chasing after a cartel van

Middle Vers wrote:P o g
5 cents.

Maybe it was 50 idk I forgot

Colligny

Untecna wrote:I think it was actually third world countries during the Cold War that were considered neutral.

Oh, yeah your right. Sorry.

The Spanish did a pretty good job with Colombia

But for some reason, we couldn't stop infighting and completely screwed over the country

Literally the moment we got our independence, the country's leaders were like
"U should go jump off a cliff for being centralist"

"shut up federalist scum, i'll shoot u"

And then they started beating up each other, Making the Spanish walk in and retake the place, and then once Bolivar got something good going a few years later, he died, and instead of keeping the country together, ecuador and venezuela decided to leave.

And finally, the Idiots that were in charge of the country in 1890 decided to start beating up each other again and refused to let the US build the panama canal, so the US funded rebels in panama and made them break free from colombia so they could build the canal.

Socialist States of Ludistan wrote:Iím always feeling a bit Xenophobic.

Ummm
*looks at winged humans*

Members of the Development Faction in Wechaiyae rally around Parliament member Cade Gillespie, who says that he will meet the ideals for the faction of the government. Meanwhile, the Peace Faction members rally with President Scarlett Trouve, who is still trying to negotiate with both sides but is leaning more towards the peace faction. Already the Development Faction members are trying to break away from their political parties to make their own party. Tensions rise once again from these actions.

«12. . .8,3698,3708,3718,3728,3738,3748,375. . .12,59512,596»

Advertisement