ARagY

Yes, I'd also swim nude if there was enough free space. I don't particularly like being around other people, so that is the real deciding factor. Maybe if there are a few lanes open I'd manage, but usually lots of people = entire pool filled and there's not much swimming to done. But if it was like 4-5 other people, assuming an average-sized pool, then I would swim.

Flag of Agin-Buryatia until 2001.

They're an awful thief if you know they are a thief. So that's my answer.

Well..if lesbos were gay..

Does anyone think island nations like Fiji (official English Hindi and Fijian) are doomed because of this? Not like you'd go to Fiji but theoretically if it becomes an attractive island..place..

I certainly don't. I guess the currency part has benefits though.

This question comes up once a year.

If every citizen was illegal America wouldn't exist and we are getting Alaska back. And no, other countries shouldn't influence the internal politics without a request. Libya's looking real fine these days. You can have trade deals, which are part of an international policy, and you can have conduct between nations that is acceptable, but the nation itself should be ruled by the nation, not by some supranational entity. If human rights are being violated somewhere, it sucks, but unless that place is a threat to you, leave it alone. It sucks and it's wrong, sure. But we're not in a world governed by right and wrong, only by interests, which take the place of a moral right or wrong. An objective right/wrong doesn't exist. So this said I'm all for having a standard (UN for example) to measure what human rights in various places look like. But I'm not for interfering when its not to a situation we like. I'm also pretty anti-EU for various reasons which include some sort of neo-imperalistic ambition to federalise europe and destroy sovereignty. I remember just a while ago people were non-stop fear-mongering the Soviet Union for the exact same thing. If you look, the primary definition there is patriotic feelings, and the only place where it mentions feeling superiority over other countries is right-wing nationalism in its example. Well then. Something's wrong with how the workings of that subdefinition plays out. But yeah sure agree to disagree.

How is nationalism bad when put in practice? Iceland is nationalist, they have a committee that decides and approves on EVERY new word and you can only select from the names they decide, like in Scandinavia. Also, not every country is America. Not even close. There are about 197 others. Yes, you do put Americans first. Who is that? People who immigrated legally and are citizens. Period. Not white, not blonde, not swearing allegiance to Hitler, but citizens. Simple. That's what I'd do for my own country. I'm proudly nationalist. And it's not about JUST meeting the criteria of being an American to hurt others, but to protect the interests of the American people over the interests of people who are not American and therefore are not impactful in the nation. It has nothing to do with being pure white. Pleaaase stop. If the Mexican is a citizen (or you know what, we can even add permanent residents to it too I guess) then putting America first means putting him first too. Gabriel Iglesias or whoever that guy was on George Lopez (not George Lopez) is legal, afaik. Putting America first means putting him first too. nationalism definition The strong belief that the interests of a particular nation-state are ofprimary importance. Also, the belief that a people who share a common language, history, and culture should constitute an independent nation, free of foreign domination. Note : Nationalism is opposed to colonialism and imperialism.

Yes. Would it not? I believe UK and France are predominately white. It's against their values to do things like exterminating Jews. I made it sound like them being invaded was a good thing because... I acknowledged they'd get something out of it? What? So unless I say NO! NAZIS WOULD BURN EVERYTHING AND YOU WOULD HAVE NOTHING AND YOU WOULD STARVE THE END then I'm practically supporting them. Riiiiight (Nationalism also got colonial independence)

They are not just nationalists but supremacists. You are conflating those things. Nationalism itself has nothing to do with some sort of feeling of ethnic or racial superiority. You didn't see anything in its 'true colours' except thuggish supremacists doing what they do. I should also remind you that there are plenty of people who want to dissolve borders...for white people. And create a white country. Nothing about nationalism also says its time to divide people into good or bad nor isolating it, nor throwing away science, economics, law, etc. Also if we let economics run everything and didn't care about the effects I guarantee you 99% of the cultures we have would be dead within a year. We are all protectionist to some extent because we want to preserve our values, and that goes against a natural flow that would otherwise act much like natural selection. There are good reasons to do that. In my opinion, culture protection of a country should come before economic value. If you don't want to integrate properly, then you don't get to immigrate, none of these half measures or "we're all human" nonsense. We are humans with various and bright ideas and values we want to be protected, supported by our countries. We stay out of the EU because it's a horror show and a sloppy mess of power projection and Britain decided to leave even at the cost of economic and social/diplomatic power. You know who else was nationalist? Soviet Union, Poland, France, and anyone else who fought against the Nazis because they wanted to protect their home.. Their values superceded the gains they'd get out of accepting annexation, like an even stronger military AND an economy that isn't in shambles.

Well, he wasn't the worst right?

The point was why was America or why is America not great? Frankly I'm tired of Americans putting America down. That's the rest of the world's job, as with any place. What, because Trump got elected the country is worthless? It's done some great things and also terrible ones like anywhere else. Can a flawed place never have a greatness to it? We're working off the definition of great being something like tremendous or notable, by the way. Not 'good' or 'bad' because those are bad terms to use.

The 1900s were when women suffrage in a lot of Europe and colonies. France is an old, old, old land. I guess they were not ever great because most of their history has non French put down. Despite being a cultural inspiration from B.C to Japan and in some ways a symbol of liberation to many. Who fought to help the US even survive. What matters is what you do in the now. If you act the same as a barbarian back then,then you are treated like it. If you advance yourself, you are marvelous and deserve redemption.

Being next to the best colony country on Earth.

I guess it depends on what medium it is. If you are talking as yourself, as an individual, then of course you can give whatever thoughts you like, but if its through any sort of non-political organisation (lets say Cartoon Network) then its inappropriate to do such things. In this case, it's her private twitter if I remember correctly. I don't think its that likely that kids will wind up shaped by whatever she says, even though it is disappointing how many celebrities have ultimately threatened to leave, called people racists, fascists, and numerous other insults, blocked people, incited all manner of disorder, and just generally not been very helpful in the trainwreck that was this entire political course. They can do so, but it is disappointing. I mean what's the purpose of that?

Wanting him to fail is directly saying you want your country to fail. That's messed up Unless failure to you is failing to start a new era of Stalin-like purges. Then he's already failed. Give up. Good morning kiddos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2Sz_fTfr1E&t=61s

If you love someone enough, you are compatible..to love them, not necessarily to have sexual relations. This is of particular notice when kinks come into play. There are some things for me for instance that are exciting and at the same time leave me in a depressed state for weeks if its not right. What's the likelihood of your success if you don't share it? Also, there are some others that simply can make one feel uneasy and just generally makes the entire situation undoable in many senses. Not everyone is vanilla. I learned that a while ago. On becoming more compatible, I say it can only happen to a certain degree - however much of your natural reactions you're willing to ignore or can ignore. Seeing your own blood for example can repulse one person and excite another. It's going to be quite difficult for one faint of heart to deal with that. "But maybe you don't do that then" you may say. Yeah, and you miss out on that much of an intimate connection with it. It's not that you should marry for sex or break up because someone doesn't share your sock fetish, because I'm sure you can find some way to work it out. But other times its just overwhelmingly too different to make it work, and assuming you do still retain these needs, if you really do want to stay together, you may want to consider an alternative form of relationship, mainly getting these needs satisfied by someone else. That's all I can think of.

And then you have the great pleasure of finding out you and your spouse are not sexually compatible. And actually no, I wouldn't be pissed if my spouse had sex with someone else.

1122

Hm.. Usually drinking until you pass out or for the little ones drinking non-alcoholic* beverages until they fall asleep and everyone can talk about adult things ;D No but I guess the usual stuff you'd expect. Hot chocolate or tea, family time, celebration, desserts, some fine cooking, maybe friends over.