Advertisement

by Bisim » Tue Aug 07, 2012 8:53 am

by Phoenigetuzstha » Tue Aug 07, 2012 8:56 am


by Leorudo » Tue Aug 07, 2012 9:25 am

by Armed Bears » Tue Aug 07, 2012 9:58 am

by Bisim » Tue Aug 07, 2012 10:12 am

by The Icemark » Tue Aug 07, 2012 10:30 am

Team P W D L For Ag +/- Pts
1 Sargossa 2 2 0 0 11 0 +11 6
2 Licentiapacisterra 2 1 0 1 2 5 -3 3
3 The Icemark 2 1 0 1 2 2 +0 3
4 The Kytler Peninsulae 2 1 0 1 3 2 +1 3
5 Taeshan 1 1 0 0 1 0 +1 3
6 Danaelia 2 1 0 1 1 7 -6 3
7 Remad 2 1 0 1 2 3 -1 3
8 United Federation of the World 1 0 0 1 0 1 -1 0
9 United Commonwealth of Ayrshire 2 0 0 2 0 2 -2 0

by Bears Armed » Tue Aug 07, 2012 10:34 am

by Free South Califas » Tue Aug 07, 2012 10:56 am
Many international visitors ask what Free South Califas means. The short answer is simple enough, as any Califan will tell you. "Califas" came to be the post-national identity claimed by unified revolutionary libertarian forces in the USAmerican state of California. "South", for the megaregion once called Southern California which broke off to form its own minimal federal union of community, workplace and defense collectives, otherwise known as the Ten Counties of South Califas (or more precisely, the many collectives which delegate them, the Federated Communities and Economies of the Ten Counties of Free South Califas.). "Free" means that our systems of governance are meant to protect individual and collective self-government from all forms of coercion that are feasible to proclude in a civilized and democratic society.
But what does it mean to be free, really?
As our readers likely know, our Federation split off from another federal body utilizing the politics and rhetoric of freedom, then known as the United States of America. However, there are few similarities even on the superficial level. How can such different unions be nominally organized on the same principle?
It is a common mistake to consider "freedom" as a clear concept with consistent boundaries across all cultural and political contexts. A minimal serviceable definition of freedom is obvious to anyone who has tasted it, even for a moment. This definition will soon be found wanting by most, except by bullies and sociopaths, who would have the advantage of domination or surprise in a totally free system. After all, if I am free to punch your face, you are not free to retain your current maximum health, beauty, security or happiness. This false freedom was eloquently dismissed in the old novel "Lord of the Flies", where life was "nasty, brutish and short" once supervision gave way to total freedom, and the strongest and most brutal children took power among their ranks. As such, total freedom is paradoxical: when there is total freedom given, there is little freedom taken, and by few.
Other conceptions of freedom are less than total, and thus make some degree of compassion, mercy, protection or social contract possible. Once it is clear that a speaker is not referencing total freedom, the worst sort of anarchic brutality, then it is easy for hir to raise positive emotions and summon popular support by giving lip service to "freedom". But it is not enough simply to ask, as the old radicals did, "Free for whom?" Another important question is, "From whence this freedom come?" For example, libertarian socialists of the 20th century noted of the so-called "free market" consensus enforced by USA federal government and its friends that it actually requires state coercion to function, thereby reducing the actual freedom of the market (conceived more broadly than as a euphemism for the most privileged and powerful executives). After all, the freedom of managers to surpass all possible trade barriers implies the suppression of those who are managed, and their freedom to dispute the just legality of contracts forced on them by the brutal dictator called circumstance. Having long since benefited as a class from the large-scale theft of the commons and of individual sustenance stock, people empowered to make decisions for hierarchical corporations--be they public or private of any sort--have the freedom to trap workers in conditions which they themselves would deeply resent if their roles were reversed. It was eventually decided in South Califas that this conception of freedom was insufficiently democratic, with a vicious and destructive character, actively preventing the cultivation and enjoyment of freedom which was nominally accepted as a universal right in the political discourse.
The "free market consensus" having been dispatched as another false freedom, it still remained for the shocked and bloodied occupier-revolutionaries to organize a system of governance which would truly secure, consolidate and protect the greatest feasible amount of freedom for all...

by West Angola » Tue Aug 07, 2012 11:06 am

by Sargossa » Tue Aug 07, 2012 11:11 am
‘. . . and they’ll be digging up bits of Danaelish footballer for years to come after the visitors were chewed up and spat out by this devastating Sargossan attack. The visitors simply had no answer as . . .’

by Slembana » Tue Aug 07, 2012 11:18 am

by Khytenna » Tue Aug 07, 2012 11:36 am
Bady 90+1
Isaac the Prince Imperial 22nd

by Mesoland » Tue Aug 07, 2012 12:33 pm
Mesoland 2
Schmitt 44, Vava 86
The Islands of Qutar 1
Unknown 51

by Wild Isle » Tue Aug 07, 2012 12:35 pm
Group 16 Standings
Team P W D L For Ag +/- Pts
1 Arcadian Islands 2 1 1 0 8 2 +6 4
2 Bostopia 2 1 1 0 5 1 +4 4
3 Chenkorya 1 1 0 0 2 1 +1 3
4 Phoenigetuzstha 2 1 0 1 1 6 -5 3
5 Beaverriver 2 0 2 0 2 2 +0 2
6 Wild Isle 2 0 2 0 3 3 +0 2
7 Karditan 2 0 1 1 1 5 -4 1
8 Northern Sunrise Islands 2 0 1 1 2 3 -1 1
9 Free South Califas 1 0 0 1 0 1 -1 0

by Carmadin » Tue Aug 07, 2012 12:59 pm
Okay, everybody, listen up. This is a motivational haltime talk. After this, you had sure better be pretty damn motivated. Also, I'm losing my voice, so imagine me screaming this while getting in your face. Now, about tactics. If I were you lot, I'd try to score more goals than them, because the team with the most points wins the game, as you well know. So, yeah. This motivational talk is now over. Feel yourselves become motivated, please
Game Stats
Carmadin 3-3 Blouman Empire
Xán '23 Goodfellow '38
Nihk '49 '78 Dellapae '65
Schmitz '80

by Taeshan » Tue Aug 07, 2012 1:38 pm

by Antoletia » Tue Aug 07, 2012 2:01 pm

by Falconwhereveryouare » Tue Aug 07, 2012 2:15 pm

by Mytannion » Tue Aug 07, 2012 2:17 pm

by West Angola » Tue Aug 07, 2012 2:27 pm

by Hutt River » Tue Aug 07, 2012 2:35 pm

by Darmen » Tue Aug 07, 2012 2:41 pm

by North Banrodesia » Tue Aug 07, 2012 2:42 pm
by Osarius » Tue Aug 07, 2012 2:55 pm
"He's looking pretty good so far. The AOCAF run was impressive, and probably down to his motivational ability and the hunger of the younger players. That he has such good support from the OFA is a major boost, too. I remember Benedict [di Corradi] often complained about the lack of funding the national team had for training jaunts and the general lack of support he had. [...] Amandeep [Sahota] is benefiting from the changes made under Montblanc, I think. If he hadn't pushed for major changes in the team's attitude -- and by extension, the nation's attitude -- and youth development, things would have been tougher for no matter who followed. Starting the qualifying campaign with two relatively easy games against inexperienced opposition will be a massive psychological boost, too."- Roberto Cormega, Grasshoppers Turic manager

by Mashiki » Tue Aug 07, 2012 3:23 pm

Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Zenic
Advertisement