anonymous conservative

Oxbow lakes would be nice terrain feature. They would generate near rivers, of course, representing an old cut off bend in the river that was created when slow parts filled in with sediment and cut off the bend or curve from the main river. They would even give you a natural three-sided moat; a potentially great area to start your base at.

The water would all be at the same level, no decreases in elevation like in rivers. They would basically just be a u-shaped lake.

here's an example of an oxbow lake:

@anony +1 for standing up for free speech and freedom of the press. People don't have the right to not be offended, and they seem to forget that. Freedom of speech should be treated as immutable due to it being absolutely vital to a free society. Censorship does in fact equal oppression.-after thought- I would like to add that any STATE run media outlets should be required to give equal representation to parties on anything related to politics, but private entities should never have their freedom of speech infringed because of someone else's 'feelings'.

NPR is the most biased media outlet ever. And they're state sponsored. I can't stand listening to that trash.

First of all, I would dispute many of the assertions made by your postings. Most of the heads of big buisnesses are NOT leftists, rather the oposit, rightists, and I think it is fairly clear based on the salaries of the high-ranking coperate officials and simultaneous low wages and outsourcing that the buisnesses do NOT have the people's best interests at heart. They need to be regulated, and the best method for doing so is the federal govenment. The first atempts by workers for better wages and conditions were met with hostility and conflict when the first unions formed.

Do not expect the workers to earn the same as the CEO's and leaders of the company. I never disputed the fact that some businesses don't have your best interests in mind, they aren't required to. But the big Gov't is required to have your best interests in mind, and they don't. They were met with hostility because the unions started the hostility. I believe that you have the right to join a union, but that doesn't mean the company leader has to appeal to the union's demands. It's their business, they can run it as they like. If the worker hates the company enough, they're free to leave.

Also, the reasons for the USA's lower rankings in academics has much less to do with Public Schooling, but rather measures such as "No Child Left Behind" (Passed by Bush), that make it neccesary to get everyone to a minimum level of competence, a level that there is no reward for surpasing, only problems if it isn't reached. The cheap, government run public schooling through highschool is the reason that the USA did so well in many areas decades ago. The problem is that now such competitiveness requires higher education, which is NOT government provided in the USA (although Obama is trying to change that). The system in Germany (which is fairly socialistic and on the rise) is better, with spliting the students into college bound and industry bound for ideal training after good, strong, basic education.

First off, I don't like Bush, and I never said I did. No education should be provided by the Gov't, because then they can indoctrinate everyone in to doing what ever they want them to. It's the parents responsibility to raise their children, not the governemnt's. The government choosing your education is just unacceptable. And I don't even know if you realize this, but your beloved Obama is not even a socialist. But I don't want to discuss him any more, I don't want my day to be ruined.

Also, you mentioned several "Socialist" countries that had collapsed. None of them had been a truly socialistic nation. The only truly socialistic nation in history has been the Incan Empire. It was a great place, without any form of currency, yet it was still expanding and strong until Spanish came in and took captive and murdered their leader who had greeted them without conflict. The main destructive agent was smallpox, also brought by the spanish. The Incan Empire was a great place were ABSOLUTLY EVERYBODY had food, water, and housing, where there was at any time about a 2 year stockpile of extra food in case of famine, and where their form of taxation was everyone labored for the government for so long each year, serving in many ways, including but not limited to government farms, building and maintaining rope bridges, working on public works such as building houses and cities, terracing land, working on the road network, serving in the military, mining, and weaving textiles for the government. Yes, social mobility was fairly limited, but the highly socialistic government made sure everyone in the empire was fed, clothed, and housed, as well as maintaining a large empire with a crime rate that was absurdly low, even by modern standards.

The Incan Empire was based on conquest and subjugation. They conquered neighboring tribes and civilizations, merging them into their own. The Incan government was barbaric. They thrived on conquest, war, and killing. One of the Incan leaders had his rival killed, and used his skull to make a kettle to drink his beer from. Do not use the Incans as a model for your perfect society. They were just as bad or even worse than their Spanish conquerors. They are comparable to Nazi Germany in many ways. And don't forget their human sacrifice, and no, I'm not confusing them with the Aztecs. I've read a book on the Incans.

Socialism has gotten a bad reputation for many because of the actions of a few dictatorships which were never truly socialist. A democratic socialistic society would actualy work very well, as long as the idea of currency was abandoned.

Socialism has only killed over a hundred million people, but ghee, let's give it another chance!

They are controled by leftists because the people there believe the leftists will help them more than the rightists, not because leftist control degraded the areas.

You're forgetting the fact that they've been controlled by leftists for generations. No change yet. Except in the wrong direction. They've only gotten worse.

I now state my opinion that there are some liberties that can be sacrificed. I believe in stringent gun control, and reading the original amendment, it actualy only gives the states the right to have groups of semi-organized armed men for protecion, in those days from the british, as we were weak and under constant thret. Now we have the strongest military in the world by far and a full-time police force to protect us/enforce the law. It is pointless in modern times. Excessive freedoms must be curbed to some degree so as to not infringe upon the freedoms of everyone else.

Gun control only kills people. The cities with the highest amount of gun control also have the highest homicide rates. Gun control arms bad guys and disarms good guys. And do you truly believe criminals will obey gun control? When's the last time you saw meth for sale at the grocery store? Also, a disarmed populace allows bad people in the Governemnt to do what ever they want with no fear of being taken out of power. ----------------With all due respect, I don't think you understand the 2nd Ammendment. Here it is:"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."As you can see, it says in clear black-and-white print that the right of the people (not militias, people) to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed. It also happens to include militias. Owning guns in no way infringes upon the rights of others. The fact that we have an extremely powerful and dangerous military only reinforces the idea that all citizens should be armed to protect themselves.

Finaly, the actions that would have the largest impact on improving the government would be to first end ALL monetary lobbying in ALL forms, second, employ a campaign media method similar to the French, where if in any media source one canidate gets so much coverage, all other canidates in the same race get the same amount of coverage, and 3rd greatly reduce the salaries of elected officals to the point that they are enough to live on but not so much as to atract people to politics for the money. These 3 steps would make the government much more honest, and a much better representation of the will of the people, not that of large corporations.

So you think the Governemnt dictating how much and what the media can report is OK? What are you gonna say when the Gov't decides that what you're saying isn't OK? It'll backfire on ya then, won't it? The Gov't must have no say what so ever in what the media and the people can say. That's why we have the right to free speech. If you don't like it, then America just might not be the place for you.The Governemnt must be controlled by the people and it must be for the people. Governemnt is not here to control us.

Let me back up a second, you're positive that rights and freedoms are so important that they should never be sacrificed under any circumstances? I interpret this to mean that all rights have equal value (the highest value) and that no right can take priority over another, and that there is nothing anyone could offer you that could ever be better than one of those rights- rights that you would never exercise trump something like financial security (not saying this is something in real life, just for example). Having the right to poop on top of mount Everest for example (you have to pay your own way there and hire guides/gear/etc) is more important than something like protection from debt fraud. Because to me, you've said that all rights and freedoms trump securities.

Big government is not interested in your security in any way- unless it somehow benefits them or gives them more power. Government doesn't keep you safe. And yes, rights trump securities. If it means your rights will be taken away so "Almighty Government" can gift you with a false security, then yes those rights and freedoms certainly trump those securities. Yes all rights have extreme power and no government or person has the right to take away your rights. They may not infringe in any way upon your right to bear arms, your right to life, your right to free speech, your right to practice any religion, your right to a fair trial, your right to property, etc etc. But big governemnts infringe or take away all of these.As for the right to bear arms, well, the populace needs to be armed to the point where the Governemnt is afraid of defying us. If that means owning RPG's, machine guns, and tanks, well so be it. We can not have a Governemnt that is more powerful than its citizens.Right to life means that no innocent person can be killed under any circumstance. No abortion, that is murder. The death penalty for EXTREMELY violent murders or terrorists should be the only exception. Right to free speech is a no-brainier. It's just blatantly evil for the Gov't to tell you what and what you can't say. If you say "I hate the Governemnt" or "I hate all members of _ religion" or "I wish so and so politician was dead" well that's your right.Right to religion- also a no-brainier that may not be infringed under any circumstance. Cults where killing/raping is involved is another story of course. Government should never so much as breathe on your property, much less tax you half to death over it. Or regulate how you use it.  

Also, I accept that you feel this way (not saying you're wrong) but I want you to explain to me (without saying something like "because" or "rights are good" or anything like that) why rights are the most important thing for a person to have. Why is absolute liberty the only way that a person can truly be happy and why should every person in America feel the same way you do? What about all these rights fulfills you? What about it puts food on your table and lets you sleep at night knowing your future is safe and your children will live happily? I just want a better idea of where you're coming from.

So. Big Governemnt does none of those things you mentioned. Big Governemnt makes you less secure and makes you less happy. Big Governemnt grows like a cancer and is always trying to find ways to undermine you and your freedom. Big government is your enemy. How many tens of millions of innocent citizens have been slaughtered and starved by big governments?----------------------------------Saying that true freedom isn't safe is like saying food isn't safe because you could potentially become obese and die earlier. Saying that true freedom isn't safe is like saying breathing isn't safe because you could breathe in a toxic chemical.Saying that true freedom isn't safe is like saying your home isn't safe because it could catch on fire.Saying true freedom isn't safe is like saying pencils aren't safe because you could use them to misspell words and fail your grammar test.Let me use this analogy to describe "turning in freedom for safety"-A dog can live its whole life in a cage, and be "safe" the whole time. Does that mean that he should? Another one:- Slaves in the pre-Civil War south were very safe. Safer than the average person. They were so safe, they couldn't leave the plantation. They didn't have to worry about being robbed, they didn't own anything anyway. They were guarded by a an overseer and a whip. Does that mean they were happy, just because they had security? Safety can be synonymous with slavery. Especially if it means sacrificing freedom to have it. Socialism is like slavery. You don't have to worry about being robbed so much, because you have nothing to be robbed of. You don't own anything in the first place. You're safe as can be, guarded by an overseer (Gov't) and a whip (militarized police force, cyber spying, drones, etc.) While these things "protect" you, they strip your freedom down to nothing. Here's another one:-Trading in freedom for security is like a mouse stepping onto a trap to get the cheese. Will he get his reward? Yes he will, but only to enjoy for the split second before his neck is snapped.DONT TAKE THE CHEESE!!!Unwavering freedom isn't worth sacrificing for if-and-maybes such as "security." You will always be free if you have freedom. You wont always be safe by giving it up. No matter what, you will never be truly safe. Anyone can lose everything at any moment. But if you live in a nation with a small Governemnt that is truly controlled by the people and for the people, you will always be free so long as you live. There is nothing in this world worth more than salvation and freedom. Also, using your logic, safety comes before freedom, right? Well you just agreed with rounding up Japanese-Americans into camps during WW2. America would've been safer without them, because a few truly were spies. But did that justify rounding all of 'em up? Of course not. You also just agreed with prohibition. We truly are safer without alcohol, but does that mean it should be banned? Of course not!!!

Name a single metric by which America is ranked #1 compared to the world at large (Excluding per capita imprisonment, boy we do love throwing people in prison. Oh and the size of our military... )  -definitely agree with you on a lot of things anon, but I'm calling shenanigans on this. 'Greatest nation in the world' my left nut . Maybe 75 years ago... but today is an entirely different America than the one that once lead the world by example.

Our greatness is not measured by income, academics, or anything else. We are great because of our system of government and our rights. No one in the world has or has ever had freedom like we do. No one. We are a shining beacon in a world of corruption, greed, oppression, socialism, etc. America is a great nation. We can retake what we have lost. We score low in academics because of Governemnt re-education camps called "public schools." Thanks socialism. We score low in income level because of our horrendous Governemnt welfare system allows people to choose to rely on the "Givernment." It has nothing to do with minimum wage. Thanks socialism. We score low in healthcare because it is dominated by the Governemnt. Thanks socialism. I'd rather be poor and free than be rich and enslaved. I'd rather have less and be free than have more and be enslaved. (That doesn't mean you have to sacrifice those things to be free.) I'm never gonna surrender my rights for more "security," more "happiness," or anything of the likes. Freedom takes precedent over any of those. I won't be a piglet suckling the federal sow. I'd rather live in a place like America than in a place like the People's Republic of Sweden. I'm sure the majority of Americans would agree. I would never live anywhere else.

I think many of America's largest issues come from poor regulation of corporations and the exploitation of your country's environment and people.

Exactly! Governemnt has put too many regulations upon us. It's almost impossible to run a business without breaking the law. I'm sure it's even worse in Canada. Yes! The big (key word big) Gov't exploits almost everyone, especially the very people they claim to protect. The environment exists to be used and enjoyed. It is there to be used. By everyone. The people of America don't exploit our environment, the government who owns so much of it does. They keep us off it, control it strictly, and restricts our use & enjoyment of it. They have a monopoly on the land.

You're right, you would be sacrificing certain rights with a larger government but are you so sure that every right is equally important? Freedom of speech is great- the government should have no say in what you think or vocalize, but if your government (like mine) said it was illegal to single out a minority or group and defame them or treat them with less kindness and respect than you treat others without due cause, would you be up in arms?

No rights are worth sacrificing. None. Zero. The fact you think it's ok for us to surrender our rights- well I'll go no further there. All rights are very important. Not a single one should be up for sale under any circumstance what so ever. We should always be able to say what EVER we want. Yes, you're allowed to be racist. You are allowed to publicaaly hate any group. It's wrong to in any way suppress public speech, whethers it's friendly or hateful is irrelevant. That doesn't mean you have the right to act on your hate in dangerous ways- but you have every right to say it PUBLICLY, to publish it, etc. No exceptions.

Yes, I'm aware the Canadian government is becoming oppressive, even faster than ours is. I know Canadians, and it's almost unbelievable how much your Gov't has stripped away freedoms.

If you judge someone on their race or religion rather than their own character, you can be penalized here. I don't think that's so bad. What's so important about having the right to be a jackass? Especially because if I have the right to be a jackass, everyone has the right to be a jackass to me, and I think I could deal with being less of a jackass if it meant everyone else would be too.

It's intolerable that a Governemnt can dictate what it's citizen say, and penalize them for not following the "Gov't regulations on speech." That's the top, nevermind, close to the bottom, of the slippery slope down to death camps and dictators. The Feds dictating what you can say and how you can act is Appaling. At that point, you functionally have no more true freedom. America was founded on free speech, along with other very important rights. That doesn't mean some or certain free speech, it means you can say whatever you want, and be free to do it without an oppressive Gov't attacking you. That's the reason we even exist. We fought a war to preserve those rights.

And who's to say evil people in the Governemnt wont force their frame of mind on to the system (this is highly likely.) Using that frame of mind, they could deem certain religions "hateful" and ban them. They could deem certain reading materials "hateful" and censor them. They could deem certain races "hateful" and exterminate them. This is the kinda stuff that went on in the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany.

Back to a topic I mentioned earlier, the largest companies in America exploit the American people. Pharmaceuticals, Money lenders, banks, tobacco, and many others pay lobbyists and your government to overturn laws that would hurt their business by protecting people from them. Your judges are elected in a popularity contest rather than by the merits of their actions. The entire system in the united states is dog-eat-dog if you're one of the unlucky few at the bottom, and your system requires those people to exist- to work at minimum-wage jobs like fast food restaurants or as janitors or as waitresses or anything else- your system deliberately puts a percentage of your people in a position where they can't afford health care or medical bills, or to get out of debt- there are so many things wrong with your country.

Most of these companies are dominated by leftists. It's the leftists exploiting the Americans. Secondly, being the customer of a company is a choice. Smoking is a choice. Using a bank is a choice. With big oppressive governemnt's, you have no choices. You obey or your life is ruined or ended.

Our system requires no one to stay at the bottom. You can succeed, but a lot of people choose not to. If you want to be successful, don't go into a career at McDoanlds. My family, just two generations ago, was dirt poor. My dad grew up in a farmhouse with no electricity or running water. But America has allowed us to succeed, a real rarity in the rest of the world.

Yes you are correct. There are many things wrong with America. They are all rooted in leftism- crony capitalism and socialism.

"Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

If you think America hates immigrants- that's just wrong. We have far more immigrants than any other nation in the Western Hemisphere. We welcome immigrants with open arms. We are the most welcoming nation on the planet. But they must come legally, and they can't just be given welfare dependency and reliance on the rest of us.

America is still the greatest nation in the world by far, and may it remain that way. We're unique. We don't need to bend to the whims and trends of the rest of the world, because they are always negative. We cut our own path. We're trailblazers. We stood out. We were the first to stand up to tyranny, and may we never fall back into it. Because this is freedom's last stand, a beacon of hope. We are a welcoming nation, in a world of hate. If we lose here in America, it's over.

God Bless America.

10

Socialism is at its heart a system of compassion- it endeavors to help those who have lost the ability to help themselves for the betterment of all, but it is easy to exploit, especially when the system is bogged down in levels of bureaucracy rather than an overall attempt to help others.

It is not governments job to give you money. Government's job is to govern, defend the homeland, and maintain infrastructure (to a limited extent.) There are so many better ways to help people financially than by putting them on the government doll.

As American politics currently stand, I don't believe there is a socialized system or socialized practices that could be employed successfully, you would need to make drastic and far reaching changes to the core of how politics are practiced before that became reasonable.

We certainly don't need drastic and far reaching changes. We need to get rid of the drastic and far reaching changes that drug this far down. We need to return to what we once had. We had gotten by just fine until leftist policies really took hold. America only suffers under progressive policies.

EDIT: small government is at it's heart, detrimental to the American people. Assuming a non-corrupt government, the impetus for laws and regulations is the improvement of the economy and the protection of a nation's people. Nations aren't businesses and for the most part would not unjustly impede the growth of their own corporations. Instead, laws and regulations are intended to ensure people aren't victims of scams, or fraud, aren't misled and cheated or otherwise tricked. A system that puts the majority of a nation's vital infrastructure in the hands of profit-driven entities can't be as successful as one that puts them in the hands of a well-run government- the government- which is at its heart a non-profit entity supremely interested in the well-being of it's people. I can speak from a non-American perspective when saying that our tighter hold on banks largely protected us from the 2008 collapse, and stricter regulations on businesses in general help protect people from being cheated out of their money. Companies don't have your best interests in mind, they want your money and simply want to convince you to give it to them. The governments job is to make sure they do this fairly.

With big Governemnt comes restrictions on or rights and freedom, without fail. America thrived under small Governemnt for more than a century, and has deteriorated as Governemnt has gotten bigger over time. There is no such thing as a completely non corrupt Governemnt, and there is absolutely no such thing as a non-profit Governemnt. That's one of the reasons Governemnt must remain (or return to being) small. I would give control of infrastructure to almost anyone before I would give it to big Governemnt. Governemnt-dominated anything is always worse without fail. It's better that it's run by dozens of companies than by one humongous one. (That's what big Governments, especially socialist ones, are; companies who run off of bullying, threatening, and stealing from their citizens.) Healthcare, transportation, infrastructure, and even military would be best run by the states, companies, and citizens. Not by an oppressive government (in this context, big is a synonym for oppressive.) Infrastructure may be an exception, it's reasonable for government to run roads in some instances. But this should be state, not federal, Governemnt. While companies may or may not have your best interests in mind, big Governemnt certainly never does. There is no such thing as a benevolent big Government. They are only benevolent to the bureaucrats and the wealthy CEOs that support them. Big Governemnt only exists to rob you. Why do you think we overthrew Britain's rule here?If there's anything that is not governemnt's job, it's restricting and regulating private businesses. That's the worst thing imaginable for the economy and the average 99% of Americans. While companies attempt to convince you to give them your money, big Governments snatch it away from you. And if you don't give it to them, you usually go to jail and your life is ruined. Big government is not the solution to America's problems, big government IS America's problems. The areas with the highest crime-rates, taxes, and poverty-rates are all controlled by leftists. Chicago, Philadelphia, Detroit, Los Angeles, Baltimore, New Orleans, Scranton, just to name a few. Finally, almost all countries that have ever ceded to much power to a federal government have failed. Rome, Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, the Soviet Union, etc. America will be added to that list if we don't change our ways and stop sprinting down the highway towards socialist destruction.

^{I sorta have to agree that socialism isn't inherently bad. There definitely is a time and a place for it. Consider the elderly. Without social security, and programs like Medicaid these people would have no one and nothing in way to many cases. There needs to be a small amount of income redistribution there in order to protect people who simply cannot protect themselves.}

^{That's why there's this thing called private charity. We should move away from government welfare programs. All the old people didnt starve and die before Socialism and FDR came along. Their community and family supported them, or they saved up enough money to live in their old age. People relying on the Federal Governemnt is almost never a good idea, under almost any circumstance. We shouldn't just abolish the system overnight, that would hurt a lot of people. But it needs to be fazed out over time. The Governemnt stealing the fruits of your labor to give to someone else is not acceptable.}

 

 ^{And a word on taxes:}

^{The income and property taxes must be abolished. They're both appalling. In general, most taxes should be done away with. Only enough that is necessary to run a bare bones federal Governemnt, hundreds of times smaller than the current one, and to maintain the nation's infrastructure should be taken, and only at the county and/or state levels. Never more than 5-10 % of your income should have to go to taxes.}

^{Income tax in a nutshell: Governemnt steals your hard earned money to use for its own personal benefit, or to keep the welfare dependents happy.}

^{Property tax in a nutshell: FEUDALISM. The Governemnt treats you as a serf who does not own your own land, but merely stewards it for the Governemnt. You pay to live in your own house and on your own land that your family has owned for generations. You're no more than a slave on the Governemnt Plantation.}

^{Death tax in a nutshell: This one the the worst. You have to pay the Governemnt to die.}

I'm open to the possibility of clutter like that, but I'd need a separate system in place for such a thing first. Its not something that I'd want to have spawn using the tree code. As far as super-large trees, I've never really been a big fan on them in other mods. Plus you end up running into placement issues where you might be able to place a tree like that near sea level, but you don't have nearly as much Y room towards the middle of an island.

The Minecraft Pocket Edition has fallen trees, and they look really good. No leaves, of course. Basically a stump and a 3-6 block long horizontal tree trunk on the ground.

Could this thread be moved to the TFC2 suggestions? It deals with TFC2 terrain generation, but was created before that forum was. Thank You!

It would be an early clothes, yes, but it's not really that protecting, is it? The only bark I can safely harvest without a tool is from cajeput tree, and I know it's waterproof. But it easily tears, so make that a low(like, a fortnight's worth of) durability.

If it's so weak, why even bother adding it in? What would be the point. I don't see any benefit.

 

I guess it comes down to, how much would we pay to have the safety and security we want?

 We should not be willing to surrender a single inch of liberty for any degree of security. Do you think the people who founded America were willing to do that? Obviously not. They fought a war over it. America was not founded on the idea of being safe.

Bark clothing? I don't think it would be a great idea to make clothing that cheap.

Not to argue with you or anything, but just because you have something that's old, and mind you, weathered doesn't mean that's how it always looked..

That picture isn't mine, it's off google images. Mine's in the cellar, and I didn't feel like lifting up that heavy door just to snap a picture of it. Buts it's very smooth, not weathered at all. And solid rocks like that dont whether enough over only a few hundred years (especially if they're buried, in which case they hardly whether at all) to significantly alter their appearance. That axe head probably looks almost exactly the same now as it did I when it was used. But it's hard to imagine one making planks smooth enough to make a barrel or door with using a tool like that. I'm not disputing the fact that Stone Age people made planks. But I'm sure the ability to make planks with a stone axe in TFC was removed for a very good reason.

Personally, I like Carly Fiorina. She would have a good shot at winning against Hillary Clinton, since the gender card can't be played if it's woman vs woman. Carson is also pretty interesting. Cruz seems too much like a used car salesman. Just cant listen to him without wincing. Trump says some cool stuff and his unfiltered mouth is fun to listen to but I can't find myself believing that he believes anything that he says. Also he never gives specifics in interviews, its all talking points. Paul has some good ideas but is too much of an isolationist, which if the last 8 years have told us anything, only makes the world worse. For the record, I'm about has middle of the line as you can get in regards to my politics. If you use This Political Test I am in the dead middle of the chart.

I'd take the worst republican over the best democrat. While I dislike some of the republicans, any of them would be far superior to someone like Hillary. I'm for any strong conservative that isn't afraid to speak the truth, and believe what they're saying. That's why I'm attracted to people like Cruz, Carson, and Fiorina. Trump probably just wants power. But we can't have someone weak like McCain or Romney. They'll lose every time. I agree about isolationism. We need to be involved, most certainly. Look at ISIS, they wouldn't exist if we still had a presence in Iraq. But not only has Obama been an isolationist, he has aided our enemies (inviting Iran to finish development of nuclear weapons, refusing to fight ISIS, backing Muslim Brotherhood president in Egypt, etc)

This country needs a large dose of Socialism. All hail Marx and Lennon.

Socialism is just about the most oppressive form of government that has ever existed.

Sheesh.Can't you Norte-Murcans keep politics out of anything?Yes - I know it's in the "off-topic" forum but there's a time and a place, guys.

And may I ask why you have such a problem with politics being discussed in the Off Topic section? Why don't you have a problem with anything or everything else that is being discussed in the Off-Topic forum? How is this any different? I'm sorry you're so offended.

A powerful light source, like the vanilla beacon, would be a good addition. It would be used to mark locations, and would be fueled by olive oil. It would burn the oil at a much faster rate than the plain oil lamps would, though.

It appears as though white elm trees have been removed. May I ask why? Just curious. I sorta liked the wood.

If you think about, the only difference between a stone axe and a metal one is in how fast the metal one works. The same principle applies to most things. To be able to get logs at a faster pace is reason enough for the player to want the metal axe.Now, once we have metals it would make no sense in keep using wedges, so we should instead use a saw.

Real-life stone axes are more akin to a hammer then to a metal axe. I have a Native American stone axe artifact, and it's basically a sledge-hammer with a slightly sharper end. With stone axes, you're basically beating through the tree using blunt force. Whereas with a metal one, you're actually cutting it. Stone and metal axes are almost completely different tools. .

I don't know what form logs will take in TFC 2, but I think it would make sense to chop logs into planks outside of the crafting grid. Considering that a mechanic like this will be necessary for game progression, I can safely assume that this suggestion is applicable.They way I'd like to see log chopping work is as follows:1. Place log facing vertically on the ground2. Select chopping tool (axe, saw, whatever)3. Hold right click for about 3 seconds. Particles come out the bottom and the log will begin to be cut down the middle. It would look similar to how chiseling blocks looks in TFC one.4. The log splits into 2. The log pieces remain on the block you placed them on. At this point you can either remove them and have half-logs to use (works like half slabs) or keep chopping.5. Move to an adjacent side of the block to where you were previously standing, and repeat step 3.6. 4 Planks (8?) pop out, destroying the log.This adds another dimension of realism to the game, and makes it actually take time to create planks. Having players use time to create planks doesn't make it more grindy, it just A: gives players something to do at night or B: makes players budget their time

This a great idea. But, only saws should be used to obtain planks. We should keep that part. It's not extremely difficult to obtain enough copper to make a saw. Axes would be used to chop up logs into firewood, but you should not be able to get planks with axes, stone or metal.To speed this process up, players could build a sawmill later on, but this would likely be limited to late-middle game and onward. It would get overly grindy, doing this over and over agin to get enough planks to build your mansion (especially if you're using a lot of plank items for detail) considering you would only get about 8 planks each time.Example of a stone axe:

_was blown to smithereens by a Creeper.

_was zombified!

_ was crushed in a cave-in!

_ was incinerated in lava.

_fell to their death!

I don't know who I'm going to vote for but I agree about the federal reserve.

I'm for Ted Cruz. It's hard to find something he believes in that I disagree with. He speaks the truth. I've actually met him, and I have an autographed copy of his book.

I find it refreshing that most people who participated so far in this poll are republicans. I think the political pendulum needs to swing back to conservative at some point.... Far left politics are getting old... And I'm far more libertarian that I would like to admit, so if I'm tired of all the PCness it would be reasonable to assume there are a lot more people out there who agree.

Indeed! Conservatives seem to be gaining lots of ground, winning back the Senate & House. Hispanics and African-Americans are abandoning the Democratic Party in droves. The Democrats' main candidate, Hillary Clinton, is very unpopular, deemed untrustworthy by the majority of Americans, and has near zero chance of winning. But the Republicans (Donald Trump cough cough Bush cough Chris cough Chhritie cough cough) really need to stop quarreling amongst themselves, we need to set aside our differences and work toward the common goal of taking back America. We can worry about differences later.

8!