Poll
Question:
Bar Bar Bar
Option 1: I'm American, Vote Yes
votes: 22
Option 2: I'm American, Vote No
votes: 10
Option 3: I'm Canadian, Vote Yes
votes: 2
Option 4: I'm Canadian, Vote No
votes: 10
Option 5: I'm Neither, Fuck This Poll
votes: 12
Bar Bar Bar, eh?
Sure. The natural resources/weird foreigners ratio is favorable.
We should also take Siberia.
Absolutely not.
Don't care either way.
IMO, some American states are welcome to join Canada. Others aren't up to scratch however
I don't see how it could make any difference; half of Canada spends half the year here in Florida as it is.
Let Quebec declare independence, allow the more populous areas of provinces to petition as territories in order to apply for US statehood, make the vast majority of the rest of it all national parks. It's not like they're using it anyway.
Quebec is the best part. The rest is just Michigan, Minnesota, Washington state, and Alaska.
Permanent Democratic Party House, Senate, and Presidency. I'm an American, and I voted yes.
Also, oil!
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 08, 2013, 07:56:51 PM
Let Quebec declare independence, allow the more populous areas of provinces to petition as territories in order to apply for US statehood, make the vast majority of the rest of it all national parks. It's not like they're using it anyway.
Awesome idea. Expand US big game hunting.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 08, 2013, 10:44:52 PM
Permanent Democratic Party House, Senate, and Presidency.
You clearly haven't been paying attention to the last 200 years of American political history.
As long as we get rid of the Canadians first, sure!
Yes.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 08, 2013, 10:47:30 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 08, 2013, 10:44:52 PM
Permanent Democratic Party House, Senate, and Presidency.
You clearly haven't been paying attention to the last 200 years of American political history.
I don't think the Americanadian merger would affect elections in the past, if that's what you're driving at. :huh:
Quote from: Ideologue on December 08, 2013, 11:05:17 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 08, 2013, 10:47:30 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 08, 2013, 10:44:52 PM
Permanent Democratic Party House, Senate, and Presidency.
You clearly haven't been paying attention to the last 200 years of American political history.
I don't think the Americanadian merger would affect elections in the past, if that's what you're driving at. :huh:
I think his point is that apparantly permanent majorities never last all that long at the national level, especially at the Presidential level. But even in Congress, the longest that one party controlled both Houses was 28 years I think (might be wrong about the exact length of time, but it's gotta be somewhere in that range).
Actually, I think it would probably result in a permanent Conservative majority in the House of Commons. There's no way a unified Canada and US would use the ridiculous American system.
Our way or the highway. Sorry.
What is the merger scenario? Canada joining the U.S. or the U.S. joining Canada? In the former case I don't see what's in it for Canadians. In the latter case I'm not sure all U.S. states are ready for the ascension.
The Americans are the ones desperate to unite with Canada. They'll have to adopt proper systems.
Voted yes. Add in the U.K., Australia, New Zealand and Ireland as well.
Tim is such a gringo.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 09, 2013, 12:08:06 AM
Voted yes. Add in the U.K., Australia, New Zealand and Ireland as well.
The Brits just are not joiners.
Quote from: Valmy on December 09, 2013, 12:14:22 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 09, 2013, 12:08:06 AM
Voted yes. Add in the U.K., Australia, New Zealand and Ireland as well.
The Brits just are not joiners.
Rename it the British Empire or the Anglo-American Commonwealth or whatever if they need their egos soothed.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 09, 2013, 12:08:06 AM
Voted yes. Add in the U.K., Australia, New Zealand and Ireland as well.
On what logic?
The US is far more culturally alien than the rest of northern Europe.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 09, 2013, 12:28:05 AM
Rename it the British Empire or the Anglo-American Commonwealth or whatever if they need their egos soothed.
Yeah the Irish will be delighted.
Quote from: Tyr on December 09, 2013, 12:40:11 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 09, 2013, 12:08:06 AM
Voted yes. Add in the U.K., Australia, New Zealand and Ireland as well.
On what logic?
The US is far more culturally alien than the rest of northern Europe.
:rolleyes:
The cultural differences between Australia, Britain and America are very slight. The northeastern US probably has more in common with southern England than it does with the southern US.
That you've lived in a place as "alien" as Japan and can't recognize this is amazing.
Valmy - Irishmen who make trouble can be deported to such noted hellholes as Massachusetts, Alberta and Australia. -_-
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 09, 2013, 12:55:18 AM
Valmy - Irishmen who make trouble can be deported to such noted hellholes as Massachusetts, Alberta and Australia. -_-
Why not Baltimore?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 09, 2013, 12:55:18 AM
:rolleyes:
The cultural differences between Australia, Britain and America are very slight. The northeastern US probably has more in common with southern England than it does with the southern US.
That you've lived in a place as "alien" as Japan and can't recognize this is amazing.
That's the big reason I have come to realise this truth. Language and the obvious surface culture aspects that people think of when they think of different cultures, are very small parts of actual cultural differences.
London is a bit of an American colony in Europe, that much is true, but overall the UK has far, far more in common with the Netherlands for example than it does the US.
One thing that I and other Brits here in Japan have noticed is that Japan is not half as alien for us as it is for Americans (though it is still alien of course) and the things we have trouble with here tend to be very different to the things that bother Americans.
London has like a third of the country's population.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 09, 2013, 01:21:13 AM
London has like a third of the country's population.
That still leaves 2/3 who aren't there. And not everyone who is actually in London buys into the general image of the place (see labour and even respect actually winning seats there.).
So let me get this straight. London resembles an American colony, but only to the extent that its inhabitants don't vote for Labour? :hmm:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 09, 2013, 01:31:40 AM
So let me get this straight. London resembles an American colony, but only to the extent that its inhabitants don't vote for Labour? :hmm:
No, there's more to it than that. Conservatives in the shires are thoroughly un-American.
Voting labour, especially as a tradition held over from the truly socialist days, does make the idea that somewhere is more American than European look a bit iffy though.
Quote from: Tyr on December 09, 2013, 01:19:44 AM
London is a bit of an American colony in Europe, that much is true, but overall the UK has far, far more in common with the Netherlands for example than it does the US.
LOL. If you say so. I get you hate London but that is just taking it too far.
Whenever I read a Squeezepost concerning the US I'm inclined to think Edward Said was on to something.
Quote from: Valmy on December 09, 2013, 01:36:49 AM
Quote from: Tyr on December 09, 2013, 01:19:44 AM
London is a bit of an American colony in Europe, that much is true, but overall the UK has far, far more in common with the Netherlands for example than it does the US.
LOL. If you say so. I get you hate London but that is just taking it too far.
:huh:
London is a bit more American than the rest of the country is going too far and hating London?
I'm not exactly saying anything novel here, it is well observed both by people fond of London and those who don't like it.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 09, 2013, 01:38:03 AM
Whenever I read a Squeezepost concerning the US I'm inclined to think Edward Said was on to something.
Throwing rocks at Israelis? Siring one of my stupidest, awkwardest, most unable-to-teach law professors?
Quote from: Ideologue on December 09, 2013, 01:42:23 AM
Throwing rocks at Israelis? Siring one of my stupidest, awkwardest, most unable-to-teach law professors?
Cold, cold.
They were rhetorical questions. I don't know what you mean. Stop hiding behind your pop culture references.
Said's claim to fame is "Orientalism," in which he laid out the the thesis that the West has seen Asia not as how it actually is, but as a construct that affirms the West's sense of self.
Quote from: Tyr on December 09, 2013, 01:42:17 AM
Quote from: Valmy on December 09, 2013, 01:36:49 AM
Quote from: Tyr on December 09, 2013, 01:19:44 AM
London is a bit of an American colony in Europe, that much is true, but overall the UK has far, far more in common with the Netherlands for example than it does the US.
LOL. If you say so. I get you hate London but that is just taking it too far.
:huh:
London is a bit more American than the rest of the country is going too far and hating London?
I'm not exactly saying anything novel here, it is well observed both by people fond of London and those who don't like it.
London is loaded with people from all over the world. It is a huge international city. It is like other huge international cities. Say what you want about America but New York is not a typical place. America is not crammed with hundreds of thousands of Indians and Eastern Europeans and Africans as a standard.
I was just kidding with you about using 'American' as an insult to London.
On the other hand I guess I would have to hear in what ways it is American. Do the inhabitants enjoy American Football? Do they have a thriving recreational gun culture? Does much of the population live in a suburb with a large yard and own at least two cars a family?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 09, 2013, 01:49:26 AM
Said's claim to fame is "Orientalism," in which he laid out the the thesis that the West has seen Asia not as how it actually is, but as a construct that affirms the West's sense of self.
Asia pretty much does the same to us. They love European stuff and I sometimes get a giggle at how Japanese video games views European history and Americans. I mean we have Chinese bureaucrats building miniature Versaillles and so forth. It is kind of hard for such different cultures to really get their heads around how the other works.
Quote from: Valmy on December 09, 2013, 01:49:36 AM
London is loaded with people from all over the world. It is a huge international city. It is like other huge international cities. Say what you want about America but New York is not a typical place. America is not crammed with hundreds of thousands of Indians and Eastern Europeans and Africans as a standard.
I was just kidding with you about using 'American' as an insult to London.
On the other hand I guess I would have to hear in what ways it is American. Do the inhabitants enjoy American Football? Do they have a thriving recreational gun culture? Does much of the population live in a suburb with a large yard and own at least two cars a family?
Cut-throat liberalism is the big one.
Having a shit-tonne of Americans helps too.
Quote from: Tyr on December 09, 2013, 02:13:03 AM
Cut-throat liberalism is the big one.
That is called being a major international city trying to compete with others for prestige and power. Oh and being a major financial center. By that logic Hong Kong and Tokyo are American.
I am not sure how we are more "cut throat", you are the guys who refuse to build homes that lower middle class and poor people can afford. That sounds pretty brutal to me. At least we give people places to live.
American. No. I'd rather like to move to Canada and live there some day without having to have the United States tag along. :Canuck:
Quote from: Syt on December 08, 2013, 11:50:51 PM
What is the merger scenario? Canada joining the U.S. or the U.S. joining Canada? In the former case I don't see what's in it for Canadians. In the latter case I'm not sure all U.S. states are ready for the ascension.
This.
It is far more useful for both countries to have a neighbor that faces roughly the same problems, and can see how alternative solutions work. Canada could thus avoid the US healthcare system, and the US could thus avoid a combined military. The countries have slightly different concepts of federalization that have been informative, as well.
Quote from: grumbler on December 09, 2013, 08:03:28 AM
and the US could thus avoid a combined military.
isn't it a tad inneficient to keep 3 seperate branches of the army that overlapp each another? Marines now accomplish many of the tasks the Army does. They have also have aircrafts, like the Navy and the Air Force.
Besides, for the latest wars it waged, the US seem to have used an integrated command for its operations. I don't see why this structure can't be replicated and slash the numbers of generals/admirals and high officers with their support staff. Also, it would help to pool all resources together toward one goal, instead of inter-army fighting over budget scraps to get their equipment in 4 or 5 different variations.
Same goes with US intelligence agency. FBI, CIA, Homeland and DEA all have overlapping roles at some point. The FBI was created to coordinate efforts from police/intelligence agencies in the country, then the CIA was created to coordinate intelligence agencies fromm all parts of the government, then the Homeland to do this job since the CIA didn't detect Saddam Hussein as Ennemy #1 beyond Osama Bin Laden.
It seems that, for all this talk in the US about small government, small is beautiful, starving the beast, etc, etc, it does not seem to apply to Army and Intelligence agencies.
They'll see the big board!
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.robokopp.de%2Fimages%2Fdr_strangelove%2Fdr_strangelove_17.jpg&hash=f0425aad6d58437d59af84cf15c5137fe1ace27c)
Quote from: viper37 on December 09, 2013, 03:39:09 PM
Quote from: grumbler on December 09, 2013, 08:03:28 AM
and the US could thus avoid a combined military.
isn't it a tad inneficient to keep 3 seperate branches of the army that overlapp each another? Marines now accomplish many of the tasks the Army does. They have also have aircrafts, like the Navy and the Air Force.
Besides, for the latest wars it waged, the US seem to have used an integrated command for its operations. I don't see why this structure can't be replicated and slash the numbers of generals/admirals and high officers with their support staff. Also, it would help to pool all resources together toward one goal, instead of inter-army fighting over budget scraps to get their equipment in 4 or 5 different variations.
Same goes with US intelligence agency. FBI, CIA, Homeland and DEA all have overlapping roles at some point. The FBI was created to coordinate efforts from police/intelligence agencies in the country, then the CIA was created to coordinate intelligence agencies fromm all parts of the government, then the Homeland to do this job since the CIA didn't detect Saddam Hussein as Ennemy #1 beyond Osama Bin Laden.
It seems that, for all this talk in the US about small government, small is beautiful, starving the beast, etc, etc, it does not seem to apply to Army and Intelligence agencies.
But but tradition and stuff.
Also rum, sodomy and the lash.
No, they just want to share the blame for Celine Dion and Justin Bieber.
Quote from: lustindarkness on December 09, 2013, 05:12:26 PM
No, they just want to share the blame for Celine Dion and Justin Bieber.
No country is perfect.
Quote from: katmai on December 08, 2013, 10:53:15 PM
As long as we get rid of the Canadians first, sure!
Just the native-born ones yes.
Quote from: grumbler on December 09, 2013, 08:03:28 AM
It is far more useful for both countries to have a neighbor that faces roughly the same problems, and can see how alternative solutions work. Canada could thus avoid the US healthcare system, and the US could thus avoid a combined military.
There were certainly problems in how the unification came into being (problem number one - putting sailors and airmen into pea green army uniforms) assorted Canadian governments have given back nearly 100% of the traditions, while budging not one inch on the substance of the unified command structure.
If you take the "traditions" argument out of it by allowing various units, forces and commands to keep their traditions, uniforms, and rank titles, I don't see the big downside to having a unified command.
Quote from: dps on December 08, 2013, 11:13:34 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 08, 2013, 11:05:17 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 08, 2013, 10:47:30 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 08, 2013, 10:44:52 PM
Permanent Democratic Party House, Senate, and Presidency.
You clearly haven't been paying attention to the last 200 years of American political history.
I don't think the Americanadian merger would affect elections in the past, if that's what you're driving at. :huh:
I think his point is that apparantly permanent majorities never last all that long at the national level, especially at the Presidential level. But even in Congress, the longest that one party controlled both Houses was 28 years I think (might be wrong about the exact length of time, but it's gotta be somewhere in that range).
Majorities don't last because they accomplish a large part of their agenda, and thus move society's equillibrium. Once the majority party accomplishes what it set out to accomplish, some of its more moderate supporters don't want it to go any further in that direction, and switch parties. That's not necessarily a bad thing for the supporters of the formerly majority parties, if they care about issues rather than tribalism, though it probably is bad for the career politicians who put themselves out of a job by succeeding.
Quote from: DGuller on December 09, 2013, 05:30:33 PM
Quote from: dps on December 08, 2013, 11:13:34 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 08, 2013, 11:05:17 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 08, 2013, 10:47:30 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 08, 2013, 10:44:52 PM
Permanent Democratic Party House, Senate, and Presidency.
You clearly haven't been paying attention to the last 200 years of American political history.
I don't think the Americanadian merger would affect elections in the past, if that's what you're driving at. :huh:
I think his point is that apparantly permanent majorities never last all that long at the national level, especially at the Presidential level. But even in Congress, the longest that one party controlled both Houses was 28 years I think (might be wrong about the exact length of time, but it's gotta be somewhere in that range).
Majorities don't last because they accomplish a large part of their agenda, and thus move society's equillibrium. Once the majority party accomplishes what it set out to accomplish, some of its more moderate supporters don't want it to go any further in that direction, and switch parties. That's not necessarily a bad thing for the supporters of the formerly majority parties, if they care about issues rather than tribalism, though it probably is bad for the career politicians who put themselves out of a job by succeeding.
Too simple a way to look at political parties - as just their ideologies.
There have been plenty of political parties that have had very long runs as the governing party, and not due to plain old electoral fraud.
ANC has been ruling South Africa for 20+ years now. The LDP ruled Japan for 40+ years. Congress ruled India for decades.
And of course, in Alberta, we're at 40+ years of PC rule.
Quote from: Barrister on December 09, 2013, 05:35:15 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 09, 2013, 05:30:33 PM
Quote from: dps on December 08, 2013, 11:13:34 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 08, 2013, 11:05:17 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 08, 2013, 10:47:30 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 08, 2013, 10:44:52 PM
Permanent Democratic Party House, Senate, and Presidency.
You clearly haven't been paying attention to the last 200 years of American political history.
I don't think the Americanadian merger would affect elections in the past, if that's what you're driving at. :huh:
I think his point is that apparantly permanent majorities never last all that long at the national level, especially at the Presidential level. But even in Congress, the longest that one party controlled both Houses was 28 years I think (might be wrong about the exact length of time, but it's gotta be somewhere in that range).
Majorities don't last because they accomplish a large part of their agenda, and thus move society's equillibrium. Once the majority party accomplishes what it set out to accomplish, some of its more moderate supporters don't want it to go any further in that direction, and switch parties. That's not necessarily a bad thing for the supporters of the formerly majority parties, if they care about issues rather than tribalism, though it probably is bad for the career politicians who put themselves out of a job by succeeding.
Too simple a way to look at political parties - as just their ideologies.
There have been plenty of political parties that have had very long runs as the governing party, and not due to plain old electoral fraud.
ANC has been ruling South Africa for 20+ years now. The LDP ruled Japan for 40+ years. Congress ruled India for decades.
And of course, in Alberta, we're at 40+ years of PC rule.
That's why I specified national level, and in the context of DGuller's point about American political history.
Quote from: Barrister on December 09, 2013, 05:29:24 PM
There were certainly problems in how the unification came into being (problem number one - putting sailors and airmen into pea green army uniforms) assorted Canadian governments have given back nearly 100% of the traditions, while budging not one inch on the substance of the unified command structure.
If you take the "traditions" argument out of it by allowing various units, forces and commands to keep their traditions, uniforms, and rank titles, I don't see the big downside to having a unified command.
Indeed. As you note, the Canadian Forces have essentially reverted back to separate armed services, with their own commanders, training establishments, personnel, uniforms, etc. They retain the unified command. In other words, they have evolved back to what the US has had since shortly after WW2.
Largest turnout for a vote in a while. :hmm:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 09, 2013, 07:09:39 PM
Largest turnout for a vote in a while. :hmm:
All the Canucklehead lurkers showed up to vote no. :lol:
You sure about that, 1/5 votes seems consistent with their presence in the rest of the forum.
Quote from: Barrister on December 09, 2013, 05:35:15 PM
Too simple a way to look at political parties - as just their ideologies.
There have been plenty of political parties that have had very long runs as the governing party, and not due to plain old electoral fraud.
ANC has been ruling South Africa for 20+ years now. The LDP ruled Japan for 40+ years. Congress ruled India for decades.
And of course, in Alberta, we're at 40+ years of PC rule.
Yep. Historically the Social Democrats in Sweden have dominated too. Not to mention Fianna Fail which has been in power for 60 of the 80 years of the Irish State. Even after being trounced after the financial crash they're coming back and they've got literally no ideology :lol:
I'm with Jos. The cultural differences between the US and the UK are far larger than between the UK and sort-of North-West Europe. It's a bit different with Australia and New Zealand. What he says about the UK and Japan rings true too. I think there's probably a lot of fundamental similarities between the Japanese and the English - excessive politeness, personal space, status, gardens, suspicion of overdevelopment - which are to do with us both living on crowded islands. And lots of relatively superficial differences.
I think that may change. Demographically the UK is becoming more American (and Canadian/Aussie/Kiwi) and less European, which may change things.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 09, 2013, 07:10:49 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 09, 2013, 07:09:39 PM
Largest turnout for a vote in a while. :hmm:
All the Canucklehead lurkers showed up to vote no. :lol:
According to the poll, it'll require military force to subordinate ourselves to Ottawa.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 09, 2013, 08:40:55 PM
According to the poll, it'll require military force to subordinate ourselves to Ottawa.
:lol:
Your next review should be on The Mouse That Roared
How about The Great Mouse Detective?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 09, 2013, 07:14:08 PM
You sure about that, 1/5 votes seems consistent with their presence in the rest of the forum.
Shouldn't they only be 1/10th of the American vote though? :hmm:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 09, 2013, 11:44:34 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 09, 2013, 07:14:08 PM
You sure about that, 1/5 votes seems consistent with their presence in the rest of the forum.
Shouldn't they only be 1/10th of the American vote though? :hmm:
Canadians are overrepresented on Languish. :alberta:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 09, 2013, 11:53:25 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 09, 2013, 11:44:34 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 09, 2013, 07:14:08 PM
You sure about that, 1/5 votes seems consistent with their presence in the rest of the forum.
Shouldn't they only be 1/10th of the American vote though? :hmm:
Canadians are overrepresented on Languish. :alberta:
And in most other things requiring intelligence.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 10, 2013, 12:34:22 AM
And in most other things requiring intelligence.
There are at least two questionable assumptions in this statement.
Quote from: grumbler on December 09, 2013, 06:46:52 PM
Indeed. As you note, the Canadian Forces have essentially reverted back to separate armed services, with their own commanders, training establishments, personnel, uniforms, etc. They retain the unified command. In other words, they have evolved back to what the US has had since shortly after WW2.
There never was a unified training establishments and personnel. They may have have basic training together, but francophones sailors sure were sent to the Maritime Institute of Rimouski for training, not the Royal Military College of St-Jean.
About the command structure, from Wikipedia:
"The current iteration of the Canadian Forces dates from 1 February 1968,[16] when the Royal Canadian Navy, Canadian Army, and Royal Canadian Air Force were merged into a unified structure and superseded by elemental commands."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Forces#Since_unification
It seems to me more efficient, for a small army at least. Have really no clue on how it works in other countries.
An independent air force is pretty important. Otherwise the Army will just try to turn its funding to useless nonsense, like close air support, or logistics.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 10, 2013, 01:17:34 AM
An independent air force is pretty important. Otherwise the Army will just try to turn its funding to useless nonsense, like close air support, or logistics.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
No to milk bags.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 10, 2013, 01:17:34 AM
An independent air force is pretty important. Otherwise the Army will just try to turn its funding to useless nonsense, like close air support, or logistics.
By independent you mean belonging to the Navy, right? You are, of crouse, right about the Army.
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 10, 2013, 03:09:18 AM
No to milk bags.
Man you are not going to be on Cal's Christmas list.
The first time I read the word plebiscite was in an Asterix book. A Roman noble said, "Will someone get that pleb a seat." I still don't get it.
Quote from: Brazen on December 10, 2013, 10:06:18 AM
The first time I read the word plebiscite was in an Asterix book. A Roman noble said, "Will someone get that pleb a seat." I still don't get it.
De Gaulle was a big fan of them.
Quote from: Brazen on December 10, 2013, 10:06:18 AM
The first time I read the word plebiscite was in an Asterix book. A Roman noble said, "Will someone get that pleb a seat." I still don't get it.
You mis-remember. It was "Will someone get that pleb a cite?" That was the Roman equivalent of the modern "let me Google that for you."
Quote from: grumbler on December 10, 2013, 05:58:35 PM
Quote from: Brazen on December 10, 2013, 10:06:18 AM
The first time I read the word plebiscite was in an Asterix book. A Roman noble said, "Will someone get that pleb a seat." I still don't get it.
You mis-remember. It was "Will someone get that pleb a cite?" That was the Roman equivalent of the modern "let me Google that for you."
:shutup: