Post Archive

Region: Federation of Conservative Nations

History

Juventini wrote:Welcome! Glad to have you.

How in the how did you get 8 endorsements already.

Gagium, Greater Bastion, Paleoconservative Citizens, Juventini

Gladesville wrote:How in the how did you get 8 endorsements already.

Endo 4 endos

Viridus, Gagium, Greater Bastion, Paleoconservative Citizens, Juventini

Arrakis wrote:Imagine getting your news from any mainstream liberal source.

At no point did I say that I get my news from a mainstream source . . .

Gagium

Liberated American Provinces wrote:At no point did I say that I get my news from a mainstream source . . .

Never said you did . . .

I was adding on to your point . . .

Gagium, Greater Bastion

Arrakis wrote:Never said you did . . .

I was adding on to your point . . .

Oh ok. It seemed like you were directing it at me since you replied to my post.

Gagium, Greater Bastion

Gladesville wrote:How in the how did you get 8 endorsements already.

Because our Lord clearly favors me

In all seriousness, I dunno. I just make sure to endorse as many as I can. Literal least I can do to help support the region as a whole.

Viridus, Gagium

When you try to appease the Gods, but end up murdering your elderly population instead :/

Viridus, Gagium, Polish Prussian Commonwealth, Greater Bastion, Paleoconservative Citizens, Emerisis

Holy Rhinish Islands wrote:Endo 4 endos

I'm the one starting the frickin' Red Plus Party conundrum, and I only have 3.

Gagium, Polish Prussian Commonwealth

Juventini wrote:Because our Lord clearly favors me

In all seriousness, I dunno. I just make sure to endorse as many as I can. Literal least I can do to help support the region as a whole.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvFLNKQe1Gs

A R R I B A  E S P A N A

Gagium, Polish Prussian Commonwealth, Juventini

Greater Nordheim wrote:When you try to appease the Gods, but end up murdering your elderly population instead :/

I question which gods you were trying to appease

Viridus, Gagium, Greater Nordheim, Greater Bastion

:D

Viridus, Gagium, Dragons Of Power, Greater Bastion, Emerisis

Ibenta wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvFLNKQe1Gs

A R R I B A  E S P A N A

¡Viva y que Dios bendiga a España, hermano! Hoy y siempre. Thank you for the laugh. Even as a joke, nice to see someone know Cara al Sol.

Viridus, Gagium, Ibenta

I'm currently wearing a MAGA hat at school.

New Waldensia, Viridus, Gagium, Dragons Of Power

Granluras wrote:I'm currently wearing a MAGA hat at school.

You have not been executed yet?

Viridus, Dragons Of Power, Greater Bastion

Otira wrote:I question which gods you were trying to appease

Well, I thought it was gonna go to the Æsir and Vanir, but for some reason all my nation’s elderly were just sacrificed to some guy named Norm. Who the f@#k is Norm???

Gagium

Post self-deleted by South Ildan.

Granluras wrote:I'm currently wearing a MAGA hat at school.

Current objective: SURVIVE

Viridus, Gagium, Greater Bastion

Granluras wrote:I'm currently wearing a MAGA hat at school.

You're such an oppressive, misogynistic white nationalist! I hate you! #notmypresident

[spoiler]Supports the modern Left that believes women and minorities need special treatment to survive where white men thrive.[/spoiler]

Viridus, Gagium, West Phoenicia, My New-Germany, Juventini

Post self-deleted by Trumpvalley.

Post self-deleted by Trumpvalley.

Gagium wrote:You have not been executed yet?

Im too fast for them.

New Waldensia, Viridus, Gagium, Greater Bastion

TRUMP 2020!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qsvy10D5rtc&t=811s

Gagium

Granluras wrote:Im too fast for them.

Good you should buy a KAG hat

Viridus, Gagium, Thixianist People

When you don't support trump but you're posting here

Chuckles I'm in danger.

Gagium, Greater Bastion, Thixianist People

South Ildan wrote:When you don't support trump but you're posting here

Chuckles I'm in danger.

die

Viridus, Gagium, Greater Bastion, Thixianist People

Granluras wrote:die

I'm not a democrat. I don't like any of 'em.

Gagium, Greater Bastion, Thixianist People

South Ildan wrote:I'm not a democrat. I don't like any of 'em.

I'm a classical liberal myself. So I support Republicans but I don't necessarily support Trump.

I used to support the Democrats but they went too far left

Furbish Islands, New Waldensia, Viridus, Gagium, Thixianist People

South Ildan wrote:Current objective: SURVIVE

sir that is extreamly brave!

Gagium, Greater Bastion, Thixianist People

Granluras wrote:I'm currently wearing a MAGA hat at school.

Are you dead yet?

Viridus, Gagium, Granluras, Dragons Of Power, Greater Bastion, Thixianist People

Gagium

I have done it. I have found it. A Chinese Francisco Franco supporter.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUicpDOD9Gg

L M A O.

Gagium, Greater Bastion, Thixianist People

The Legion Of Mankind wrote:Are you dead yet?

perhaps

Gagium, Thixianist People

Post by Furbish Islands suppressed by a moderator.

*sips tea*

Gagium

Gagium, Greater Bastion

Granluras wrote:I'm currently wearing a MAGA hat at school.

Oh. One of those kids.

Ulrech, Gagium, The Legion Of Mankind, Dragons Of Power, Greater Bastion

Post by Furbish Islands suppressed by a moderator.

Furbish Islands wrote:Yes he is

:D

Liberated American Provinces, Gagium

Greater Bastion wrote:You're such an oppressive, misogynistic white nationalist! I hate you! #notmypresident

[spoiler]Supports the modern Left that believes women and minorities need special treatment to survive where white men thrive.[/spoiler]

This tbh. Hurts my bones whenever I hear that stance presented. All sound like a broken record eventually.

Ulrech, Viridus, Gagium, Greater Bastion

Granluras wrote:I'm currently wearing a MAGA hat at school.

Wow racist much?

Viridus, Gagium, The Legion Of Mankind, Emerisis

Laurel wrote:Wow racist much?

uh oh

New Waldensia, Viridus, Gagium, Emerisis

Furbish Islands wrote:I have information that will lead to the arrest of the Clintons

Oh dear

Furbish Islands, Washingtonian Republic, Viridus, Emerisis

How much would it cost for all of you to become socialists for one day. (Christian socialism does not count)

Gagium, Juventini

South Ildan wrote:How much would it cost for all of you to become socialists for one day. (Christian socialism does not count)

wtf is christian socialism?

Gagium, South Ildan

Xogg wrote:wtf is christian socialism?

Jesus said help the poor. They base their ideology around that.

Ibenta, Juventini

I've published a condemnation against East Borland, wish me luck.

(*Satanic Creeking Noises* I have to go in and rewrite it to comply with rule 4c. of SC applications)

Ulrech, Gagium, Ibenta

Xogg wrote:wtf is christian socialism?

As South Ildan said, it's essentially following the fundamental teachings of Christ. It's a bit of an odd one but in my opinion can be incredibly beneficial in its own way if done well. Not only just taking care of your fellow man but also:

A - Having a common faith to gather under is incredibly advantageous to forming social bonds, maintaining unity and a shared sense of identity through Christ

B - Allows the ability to apply other fundamentals of Christain belief to this brand of "socialism," which I don't know if I would consider inherently left. It gives the opportunity to use "socialism" to make sure your fellow man is thriving, but also ensures the strengthening of things such as proper structures of family and marriage, basic morality, possibly taking those who are not Christain in and opening their eyes to Christian faith, removing (absolutely bullshit) negative stereotypes of all Christians, maintaining the right traditional social norms, charitable use of the Church as an institution, so on and so forth.

Thats just my interpretation and take on it though, I welcome anyone to correct me honestly, (I have my inherent biases, I won't be ignorant to that) and I'd encourage you to read into it yourself. It's an incredibly interesting philosophy that can be applied to all major Abrahamic religions

Gagium, South Ildan

South Ildan wrote:How much would it cost for all of you to become socialists for one day. (Christian socialism does not count)

Give me ten dollars and I'm up for it

Ulrech, Liberated American Provinces, Viridus

Furbish Islands wrote:I agree that a lot are, but Biden is alright.

Biden represents the stagnation of American society. His policies--if any of them are actually more concrete than a few buzzwords--are mere dog bones to the people; he intends to champion the same old proposals of the Democratic Party to the benefit of corporate interests and at the expense of regular working Americans. Quite frankly, he is no different from most Republicans. The only thing that separates Biden from most members of the GOP is that he acts on his white guilt. He just so happens to be a fake Catholic and is somewhat "woke" for halfheartedly advancing socially progressive causes.

Biden is a neo-liberal, just like Pete Buttigieg. And what are neo-liberals? They are essentially libertarians who happen to be only somewhat apologetic of their wealth and status--that will claim to advance the desires of the masses only to stop short to maintain their own riches. They are the status quo. And if you choose to nominate Biden, this is what you will get: nothing. Nothing but the same broken rules and systems that don't benefit the common man. He may speak of justice and equality, but he will do very little to change this system for the people who face injustice and inequality daily. That's because he is the embodiment of everything wrong with capitalism; he's a product of dysfunction and its agent.

Let me make this clear. You do not need to ardently support capitalism to believe in a free society. In fact, I'm not advocating for a socialist uprising or a communist revolution. All I am asking is that we make one important realization--one important admission: that capitalism is not perfect. That capitalism can hurt the people. That capitalism often violates conservative principles--especially those of the communitarian tradition. And from this realization, all that I hope for is that people will act to correct these wrongs, instead of ignoring them as the selfish, immature whining of society's scum.

Liberated American Provinces, Gagium, Juventini

Xogg wrote:wtf is christian socialism?

Think a little about me: fiscally liberal to the point of socialism but socially conservative.

Gagium

Ibenta wrote:Biden represents the stagnation of American society. His policies--if any of them are actually more concrete than a few buzzwords--are mere dog bones to the people; he intends to champion the same old proposals of the Democratic Party to the benefit of corporate interests and at the expense of regular working Americans. Quite frankly, he is no different from most Republicans. The only thing that separates Biden from most members of the GOP is that he acts on his white guilt. He just so happens to be a fake Catholic and is somewhat "woke" for halfheartedly advancing socially progressive causes.

Biden is a neo-liberal, just like Pete Buttigieg. And what are neo-liberals? They are essentially libertarians who happen to be only somewhat apologetic of their wealth and status--that will claim to advance the desires of the masses only to stop short to maintain their own riches. They are the status quo. And if you choose to nominate Biden, this is what you will get: nothing. Nothing but the same broken rules and systems that don't benefit the common man. He may speak of justice and equality, but he will do very little to change this system for the people who face injustice and inequality daily. That's because he is the embodiment of everything wrong with capitalism; he's a product of dysfunction and its agent.

Let me make this clear. You do not need to ardently support capitalism to believe in a free society. In fact, I'm not advocating for a socialist uprising or a communist revolution. All I am asking is that we make one important realization--one important admission: that capitalism is not perfect. That capitalism can hurt the people. That capitalism often violates conservative principles--especially those of the communitarian tradition. And from this realization, all that I hope for is that people will act to correct these wrongs, instead of ignoring them as the selfish, immature whining of society's scum.

I mean Furby is basically a neolib, so I don't think you're gonna dissuade his support of Biden with those points as good as they may be.

Furbish Islands, Viridus, Gagium, Ibenta

Ibenta wrote:Biden represents the stagnation of American society. His policies--if any of them are actually more concrete than a few buzzwords--are mere dog bones to the people; he intends to champion the same old proposals of the Democratic Party to the benefit of corporate interests and at the expense of regular working Americans. Quite frankly, he is no different from most Republicans. The only thing that separates Biden from most members of the GOP is that he acts on his white guilt. He just so happens to be a fake Catholic and is somewhat "woke" for halfheartedly advancing socially progressive causes.

Biden is a neo-liberal, just like Pete Buttigieg. And what are neo-liberals? They are essentially libertarians who happen to be only somewhat apologetic of their wealth and status--that will claim to advance the desires of the masses only to stop short to maintain their own riches. They are the status quo. And if you choose to nominate Biden, this is what you will get: nothing. Nothing but the same broken rules and systems that don't benefit the common man. He may speak of justice and equality, but he will do very little to change this system for the people who face injustice and inequality daily. That's because he is the embodiment of everything wrong with capitalism; he's a product of dysfunction and its agent.

Let me make this clear. You do not need to ardently support capitalism to believe in a free society. In fact, I'm not advocating for a socialist uprising or a communist revolution. All I am asking is that we make one important realization--one important admission: that capitalism is not perfect. That capitalism can hurt the people. That capitalism often violates conservative principles--especially those of the communitarian tradition. And from this realization, all that I hope for is that people will act to correct these wrongs, instead of ignoring them as the selfish, immature whining of society's scum.

I hope you're not being sarcastic because this is pretty good.

Gagium, Ibenta

Laurel wrote:I hope you're not being sarcastic because this is pretty good.

With the things that I have seen and experienced in my life, you can best believe that I wrote this with every serious intention. What I have written above is more than just my political views. Those words make up a part of my identity; they are inextricably tied to the suffering that I still experience every single day.

New Waldensia, Gagium, Juventini

>When you have no idea which Conservative region to join so you jump between five of them in a week

Ulrech, New Waldensia, Viridus, Gagium

Ibenta wrote:With the things that I have seen and experienced in my life, you can best believe that I wrote this with every serious intention. What I have written above is more than just my political views. Those words make up a part of my identity; they are inextricably tied to the suffering that I still experience every single day.

Let's hug it out, bro. We're all going to make it.

New Waldensia, Viridus, Gagium, Ibenta, Juventini

Greater Bastion wrote:I'm a classical liberal myself. So I support Republicans but I don't necessarily support Trump.

I used to support the Democrats but they went too far left

Not to burst your bubble here, but that doesn't make you sound any better than a generic member of the Republican establishment--a contradiction.

Since you're a "classical liberal," you obviously believe in economic freedom. And given that you made the switch from the Democratic Party to the GOP, I'm going to infer that you have some rather socially conservative beliefs. I'm sorry, but becoming both fiscally and socially conservative sounds like a huge contradiction.

For example, presumably, you believe that abortion is a sin. And yet how do you support an economic system that allows corporations to not only back, but also champion the pro-choice cause? How do you support an economic system in which an organization like Planned Parenthood can exist--a business that profits off the suffering of people? And presumably, you believe that our society has become hypersexualized. Again, who do you think is most responsible for that? Who do you think makes the most profits off of shamelessly objectifying women?

Gagium, Juventini

Ibenta wrote:I'm sorry, but becoming both fiscally and socially conservative sounds like a huge contradiction.

If I may, contradictory to what? I'd like to hear more on why you believe that this is a huge contradiction - Rather, it would seem that the vast majority of Republicans hold these apparently-contradictory beliefs.

Liberated American Provinces, Ibenta

Ibenta wrote:For example, presumably, you believe that abortion is a sin. And yet how do you support an economic system that allows corporations to not only back, but also champion the pro-choice cause? How do you support an economic system in which an organization like Planned Parenthood can exist--a business that profits off the suffering of people?

I believe there's a good deal of significantly-more-socialist economic systems that also back and champion the pro-choice cause - No corporations needed. I'd argue that it's hardly the economic system, rather the beliefs held by those in charge of it - Whether it be capitalist or socialist. We didn't have this problem in still-capitalistic 1900s or so America.

Liberated American Provinces, Viridus, Juventini

Gagium wrote:I believe there's a good deal of significantly-more-socialist economic systems that also back and champion the pro-choice cause - No corporations needed. I'd argue that it's hardly the economic system, rather the beliefs held by those in charge of it - Whether it be capitalist or socialist. We didn't have this problem in still-capitalistic 1900s or so America.

I wanted to bring up that point but I was a little hesitant to. It could be said that the only reason pro-choice, sexually exploitive, and general degrading ideals are pushed in marketing is because "we've" allowed them to become profitable overtime. The "didn't have this problem before" point is valid. Loss of values is wide-spread and is easy to pounce on if given the chance. Yes, whatever gives profits will dictate what is pushed to be childishly simple with it, but if these problematic issues weren't allowed to become profitable, they might not be nearly as widespread and becoming nearly as deeply a problem as they seem to be.

Gagium wrote:If I may, contradictory to what? I'd like to hear more on why you believe that this is a huge contradiction - Rather, it would seem that the vast majority of Republicans hold these apparently-contradictory beliefs.

They do. Most Americans--Democrats and Republicans alike--understand the political landscape with an incredibly flawed perspective. Most academic conservatives--at least those that aren't taking the bacon from Heritage, Cato, ISI, or AEI--would tell you what I am saying now. Fusionism--the concept that you can combine libertarian principles regarding the economy with conservative social views--does not work. It's a sham perpetuated by Nixon to try and forge a new coalition of voters, Reagan after years of conditioning by corporate interests, and Buckley, Jr., who wanted to find a new consensus to ideologically combat anything remotely related to communism and socialism.

I am basically stating the obvious here. Conservatives are not libertarians. Libertarians and not conservatives. The divisions between the two exist for a reason, and most Republicans should realize this reality. In reference to your question of what is contradictory, numerous points from both ideologies are contradictory to one another; in effect, conservatism is contradictory to libertarianism.

Laurel, Gagium

Gagium wrote:I believe there's a good deal of significantly-more-socialist economic systems that also back and champion the pro-choice cause - No corporations needed. I'd argue that it's hardly the economic system, rather the beliefs held by those in charge of it - Whether it be capitalist or socialist. We didn't have this problem in still-capitalistic 1900s or so America.

That doesn't discount what I just said. Libertarian thought still permits, if not actively perpetuates, something that conservatives are opposed to. It may not support abortion in the same way as a socialist government, but it, at the very least, allows for it.

Laurel, Gagium

Juventini wrote:I wanted to bring up that point but I was a little hesitant to. It could be said that the only reason pro-choice, sexually exploitive, and general degrading ideals are pushed in marketing is because "we've" allowed them to become profitable overtime. The "didn't have this problem before" point is valid. Loss of values is wide-spread and is easy to pounce on if given the chance. Yes, whatever gives profits will dictate what is pushed to be childishly simple with it, but if these problematic issues weren't allowed to become profitable, they might not be nearly as widespread and becoming nearly as deeply a problem as they seem to be.

You literally just argued my point. A capitalist economic system, based on libertarian principles, made abortions profitable. Those are your words. So then I ask, "Is that in line with conservative principles?"

Laurel, Gagium

Gagium wrote:I believe there's a good deal of significantly-more-socialist economic systems that also back and champion the pro-choice cause - No corporations needed. I'd argue that it's hardly the economic system, rather the beliefs held by those in charge of it - Whether it be capitalist or socialist. We didn't have this problem in still-capitalistic 1900s or so America.

I think there is one underlying premise you and I disagree on: the extent to which economic systems influence the patterns of thoughts of their actors.

Needed to point that out.

Laurel, Liberated American Provinces, Gagium

Ibenta wrote:You literally just argued my point. A capitalist economic system, based on libertarian principles, made abortions profitable. Those are your words. So then I ask, "Is that in line with conservative principles?"

Let's say that abortions are profitable. That doesn't mean that you can't support the free market while also supporting a ban on abortion.

Gagium

Ibenta wrote:That doesn't discount what I just said. Libertarian thought still permits, if not actively perpetuates, something that conservatives are opposed to. It may not support abortion in the same way as a socialist government, but it, at the very least, allows for it.

Sure, it would allow for it in a capitalistic economy in which it is legal. I believe it’s possible to not change a single thing about the economic system and yet make it illegal, correct? Sure, it could certainly still be carried out illegally, yet that problem transends the economic system.

I don’t believe it necessarily has to do with libertarianism vs. conservativism - Abortion could be made a very socially conservative thing should you take the choice out of it, right?

Liberated American Provinces, Viridus, Ibenta

Liberated American Provinces wrote:Let's say that abortions are profitable. That doesn't mean that you can't support the free market while also supporting a ban on abortion.

Ibenta wrote:I think there is one underlying premise you and I disagree on: the extent to which economic systems influence the patterns of thoughts of their actors.

Needed to point that out.

Oh I see where you are coming from. Though I disagree with the premise.

Gagium

Ibenta wrote:Fusionism--the concept that you can combine libertarian principles regarding the economy with conservative social views--does not work. It's a sham perpetuated by Nixon to try and forge a new coalition of voters, Reagan after years of conditioning by corporate interests, and Buckley, Jr., who wanted to find a new consensus to ideologically combat anything remotely related to communism and socialism.

Perhaps Nixon did perpetuate this to form his coalition of voters and Reagan advocated for it whilst being conditioned by corporate interests. And yet, you seem to look towards the relatively-still-recentish past, during which America has undeniably been becoming less and less socially conservative. What of the roaring 20s and other associated decades, in which America has been rather socially conservative (At least in morals), and yet has retained its capitalistic, “libertarian” economic system. While the extent to whether America’s government was libertarian or socially conservative is really debatable during the time period I’m referring to, as we’re certainly going off of modern standards, the point is that it hardly started with Nixon and Buckley Jr.

Ibenta wrote:

I am basically stating the obvious here. Conservatives are not libertarians. Libertarians and not conservatives. The divisions between the two exist for a reason, and most Republicans should realize this reality. In reference to your question of what is contradictory, numerous points from both ideologies are contradictory to one another; in effect, conservatism is contradictory to libertarianism.

I can see what you’re saying, and honestly I believe that we aren’t going to be able to convince one another of what we define as conservatism, libertarianism, and why/how they’re contradictory. I don’t think I see how social and economic conservatism are contradictory still, at the moment at least - I mean, certainly the vast majority of American politicians (I’ll lump the republicans and the democrats both in here) aren’t advocating for an apparently-obvious contradictory ideology?

Liberated American Provinces

Ibenta wrote:I think there is one underlying premise you and I disagree on: the extent to which economic systems influence the patterns of thoughts of their actors.

Needed to point that out.

Yes, indeed..

Ibenta

Gagium wrote:Sure, it would allow for it in a capitalistic economy in which it is legal. I believe it’s possible to not change a single thing about the economic system and yet make it illegal, correct? Sure, it could certainly still be carried out illegally, yet that problem transends the economic system.

I don’t believe it necessarily has to do with libertarianism vs. conservativism - Abortion could be made a very socially conservative thing should you take the choice out of it, right?

The laws are a reflection of the people's will. Laws don't necessarily influence people as well as the people influence the laws. If you truly believed the former, you would, in effect, argue that people are inherently axiomatic to the government--that they are essentially the creations of the state, the state's actors. No, the government is axiomatic to the people. The people create their governments and their laws. And the people are not necessarily dependent on their government to the extent that their government is dependent on the people.

But with that said, there is something that greatly influences people via direct changes to culture: corporations. The ultimate goal of any business is to make profit. How do you do that? Companies often call it marketing. You and I can call it for what is really is: changing public perception and shaping culture. Companies have changed the way in which people think and behave. They still do it. Business is tied to culture, and in a capitalist society, inextricably so. The historical consequences of corporate interests shaping the thoughts of the masses have been more than profound and less than good for this country. The people may shape their laws, but business will shape the people's culture--their behavior.

Gagium, Juventini

Ibenta wrote:You literally just argued my point. A capitalist economic system, based on libertarian principles, made abortions profitable. Those are your words. So then I ask, "Is that in line with conservative principles?"

To articulate what I meant in case I'm having some miscommunication here, what I was trying to say, or at least propose, is that "Is that an issue with the concept of capitalism and inherently one of the many flaws, or is that an issue with shifts in societal norms overtime?"

I'd think that there are far more variables than simply a binary "either/or" choice, and reading one of your responses to Gagium I see you've already adressed that.

That said, yeah you're right, I did argue your point, and no, I can't say it is in line with conservative principles in any way. I will concede that you've got me there. I suppose I haven't looked too heavily into it at that perspective. Spending most of my life in the USA has definitely given me a very narrow, and very "black and white," Capitalism conservative, anything thats not Capitalism is Leftist, and "they're not able to be separated" view of the subject if applying it simply to what I know and my understanding of the current circumstances. Combined with admittedly little education on the subject of economics, (and if any, possibly not the best education at that) it's a relatively chained understanding I've been trying to break and expand upon.

Regardless I appreciate you sharing your take, definitely something to chew on. From what you're saying, I can't say anything against without more or less bullshitting myself at heart.

Gagium, Ibenta

Gagium wrote:Perhaps Nixon did perpetuate this to form his coalition of voters and Reagan advocated for it whilst being conditioned by corporate interests. And yet, you seem to look towards the relatively-still-recentish past, during which America has undeniably been becoming less and less socially conservative. What of the roaring 20s and other associated decades, in which America has been rather socially conservative (At least in morals), and yet has retained its capitalistic, “libertarian” economic system. While the extent to whether America’s government was libertarian or socially conservative is really debatable during the time period I’m referring to, as we’re certainly going off of modern standards, the point is that it hardly started with Nixon and Buckley Jr.I can see what you’re saying, and honestly I believe that we aren’t going to be able to convince one another of what we define as conservatism, libertarianism, and why/how they’re contradictory. I don’t think I see how social and economic conservatism are contradictory still, at the moment at least - I mean, certainly the vast majority of American politicians (I’ll lump the republicans and the democrats both in here) aren’t advocating for an apparently-obvious contradictory ideology?

I'm sorry, but the Roaring Twenties were marked by social conservatism? I'm sure by today's standards but certainly not in comparison to the modesty of the society that came before it. You want to tell me that practically nude female singers singing to patrons of secret bars drinking illegal alcohol is the pinnacle of social conservatism? Yes. I'm sure that we can sing of our patron saint Al Capone, he who murdered ruthlessly friend and foe alike. Let's not kid ourselves. But you are right about one thing: it was marked by libertarian economic thought.

Also, don't get your hopes up. You and I may think of Trump as an idiot, but he definitely espoused views--albeit, poorly--that align with the kind of populism I advocate. And with the way the Democratic Party is looking, you may have seen nothing yet. I say this often, but I'll say it again. The party that abandons its corporate wing--neo-liberals and libertarians--will have an advantage in the American political arena.

Gagium

Ibenta wrote:The laws are a reflection of the people's will. Laws don't necessarily influence people as well as the people influence the laws. If you truly believed the former, you would, in effect, argue that people are inherently axiomatic to the government--that they are essentially the creations of the state, the state's actors. No, the government is axiomatic to the people. The people create their governments and their laws. And the people are not necessarily dependent on their government to the extent that their government is dependent on the people.

Perhaps, you may definitely be right - Or, maybe, could laws be a reflection of the lack of will on our part? I believe a good number of polling time and time again has revealed a general distrust of our current government through the Obama and Trump administrations, and yet we keep electing the same status-quo politicians to make laws for us, despite not trusting them a single bit. Though yes, the people certainly influence the law more than vice-versa - That’s what politicians, despite how deep in whoever’s pockets they may be, go off of for the majority of bills and laws passed (I hope anyways :p).

However democratic we may be (Or think we are), though, the government’s role in lawmaking and how we think is undeniably important - I don’t know whether it is equally so or not, but the modern media and news networks that attract millions of viewers a night seem to only be focused on what our politicians in the government want them to be focused on, right?

Ibenta wrote:But with that said, there is something that greatly influences people via direct changes to culture: corporations. The ultimate goal of any business is to make profit. How do you do that? Companies often call it marketing. You and I can call it for what is really is: changing public perception and shaping culture. Companies have changed the way in which people think and behave. They still do it. Business is tied to culture, and in a capitalist society, inextricably so. The historical consequences of corporate interests shaping the thoughts of the masses have been more than profound and less than good for this country. The people may shape their laws, but business will shape the people's culture--their behavior.

I’d like to ask you this - Asides from how they’re elected or appointed or whatever to their positions, how are politicians and corporate leaders inherently different in how they influence or seek to influence people? I’d like to argue that there’s very little difference, though indeed the corporate leaders do so much more subvertedly, and maybe even more persistently.

I suppose that business is tied to culture, though I’ve observed that generally business seems to stem from culture, correct?...Which you seem to say is built off of previous businesses. It seems like we have a cycle, almost like that question about which came first - The chicken or the egg, only here it’s change in corporations or cultural change.

Bleh. Back to business, certainly it would be more profitable to invest in something already cultural acceptable rather than continually shift culture to become more liberal in the pursuit of potential dominance over consumers?

Juventini

Ibenta wrote:I'm sorry, but the Roaring Twenties were marked by social conservatism?

Indeed by our standards - Which I’d like to argue based off of modern standards. Keeps things simpler, y’know?

Ibenta wrote:You want to tell me that practically nude female singers singing to patrons of secret bars drinking illegal alcohol is the pinnacle of social conservatism?

In terms of the law of the land at the time (Which, being dictated by politicians and politics, is what I believe you and I were/are both arguing, maybe? This debate is a weird mess of cultural-economic-political thought though), yes, America was certainly more socially conservative than it is today, even by 20s standards - You yourself mentioned an exemplary point that can be used to shine a spotlight on this, prohibition.

Ibenta wrote:Also, don't get your hopes up. You and I may think of Trump as an idiot, but he definitely espoused views--albeit, poorly--that align with the kind of populism I advocate. And with the way the Democratic Party is looking, you may have seen nothing yet. I say this often, but I'll say it again. The party that abandons its corporate wing--neo-liberals and libertarians--will have an advantage in the American political arena.

Indeed..Just look at modern culture. It’s becoming increasingly out of style to do anything corporate or relating to corporations in politics, and though I mentioned this in my other responsible about people voting in politicians, I do believe that we’ll eventually stop electing politicians who are (for wha we can see) beholden by corporate donors etc. etc.

I dunno. I’m waiting to see more on how the 2020 elections and primaries will play out to say more about how we’re going in terms of that.

Dragons Of Power

Gagium wrote:Perhaps, you may definitely be right - Or, maybe, could laws be a reflection of the lack of will on our part? I believe a good number of polling time and time again has revealed a general distrust of our current government through the Obama and Trump administrations, and yet we keep electing the same status-quo politicians to make laws for us, despite not trusting them a single bit. Though yes, the people certainly influence the law more than vice-versa - That’s what politicians, despite how deep in whoever’s pockets they may be, go off of for the majority of bills and laws passed (I hope anyways :p).

However democratic we may be (Or think we are), though, the government’s role in lawmaking and how we think is undeniably important - I don’t know whether it is equally so or not, but the modern media and news networks that attract millions of viewers a night seem to only be focused on what our politicians in the government want them to be focused on, right? I’d like to ask you this - Asides from how they’re elected or appointed or whatever to their positions, how are politicians and corporate leaders inherently different in how they influence or seek to influence people? I’d like to argue that there’s very little difference, though indeed the corporate leaders do so much more subvertedly, and maybe even more persistently.

I suppose that business is tied to culture, though I’ve observed that generally business seems to stem from culture, correct?...Which you seem to say is built off of previous businesses. It seems like we have a cycle, almost like that question about which came first - The chicken or the egg, only here it’s change in corporations or cultural change.

Bleh. Back to business, certainly it would be more profitable to invest in something already cultural acceptable rather than continually shift culture to become more liberal in the pursuit of potential dominance over consumers?

And did the people have any good alternatives to Obama and Trump? And actually, Trump said mostly the right things, albeit poorly. The alternative to him was Hillary Clinton. Let that sink in. But look now. Warren and Sanders. On top, according to the latest polls. Funded by the people against corporate interests.

On your second set of points, you kind of answered the question for me. Also, I urge you to consider whether you can hate a person more easily than a company that can always re-brand, change leadership, restructure, etc. etc.

By the way, you're telling me that an existing company is going to roll over and die because culture has moved past its allure? Trust me, that's not how any smart business behaves. And businesses stemming from culture? Yeah, I've seen that, too. It's called that one company started by two college-dropouts that mails literal pieces of potatoes and yet somehow got funding from an investor in Shark Tank.

Gagium

Gagium wrote:Indeed by our standards - Which I’d like to argue based off of modern standards. Keeps things simpler, y’know?

In terms of the law of the land at the time (Which, being dictated by politicians and politics, is what I believe you and I were/are both arguing, maybe? This debate is a weird mess of cultural-economic-political thought though), yes, America was certainly more socially conservative than it is today, even by 20s standards - You yourself mentioned an exemplary point that can be used to shine a spotlight on this, prohibition. Indeed..Just look at modern culture. It’s becoming increasingly out of style to do anything corporate or relating to corporations in politics, and though I mentioned this in my other responsible about people voting in politicians, I do believe that we’ll eventually stop electing politicians who are (for wha we can see) beholden by corporate donors etc. etc.

I dunno. I’m waiting to see more on how the 2020 elections and primaries will play out to say more about how we’re going in terms of that.

There's also Yang.

:lol:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8hkJLa5_4E

Gagium

Ibenta, you make some good points. What's more, you articulate them well.

Mind if I ask you who your favorite non-living American presidents are? Perhaps a little off-topic, but your politics have me wondering.

Ulrech, Gagium, Ibenta

Leaves region for a bit after terrible argument, stumbles into another. Leaves.

Gagium

Dragons Of Power wrote:Leaves region for a bit after terrible argument, stumbles into another. Leaves.

I'd say this is a rather good debate/lecture and not an argument.

Viridus, Gagium, Dragons Of Power, Juventini

Otira wrote:Ibenta, you make some good points. What's more, you articulate them well.

Mind if I ask you who your favorite non-living American presidents are? Perhaps a little off-topic, but your politics have me wondering.

Lincoln, Eisenhower, and FDR.

Gagium

Otira wrote:I'd say this is a rather good debate/lecture and not an argument.

Oh, alrighty then.

Gagium, Ibenta

Dragons Of Power wrote:Oh, alrighty then.

Yeah, I'd get a drink with Gagium, at this point. Maybe also get some cigars.

Ulrech, Viridus, Gagium, Dragons Of Power

Ibenta wrote:Yeah, I'd get a drink with Gagium, at this point. Maybe also get some cigars.

Lol

Gagium

Ibenta wrote:Lincoln, Eisenhower, and FDR.

Not a half-bad lot. Some fine Americans. Eisenhower is extremely underappreciated. And both Roosevelts did fine things, I would say.

Gagium, Ibenta

Post by Furbish Islands suppressed by a moderator.

>prez of a conservative region is a liberal non-conservative who votes democrat

can't make this up lol

Liberated American Provinces, Viridus, Gagium, Ibenta

Furbish Islands wrote:Jokes on you. I'm

1) a neolib

2) not socially conservative, or at least not as extreme as you are

Well. At least you're proud to be wrong.

Viridus, Gagium

Ibenta wrote:And did the people have any good alternatives to Obama and Trump? And actually, Trump said mostly the right things, albeit poorly. The alternative to him was Hillary Clinton. Let that sink in. But look now. Warren and Sanders. On top, according to the latest polls.

Certainly so, if we ardently desired enough for so. Realistically though? No, which is the point I’m attempting to make, kind of - Sure, the people influence law rather than the opposite, but those people seem to be the politicians we have little real choice in what they end up doing, representative or unrepresentative of us.

Ibenta wrote:On your second set of points, you kind of answered the question for me. Also, I urge you to consider whether you can hate a person more easily than a company that can always re-brand, change leadership, restructure, etc. etc.

By the way, you're telling me that an existing company is going to roll over and die because culture has moved past its allure? Trust me, that's not how any smart business behaves. And businesses stemming from culture? Yeah, I've seen that, too. It's called that one company started by two college-dropouts that mails literal pieces of potatoes and yet somehow got funding from an investor in Shark Tank.

First point, you indeed have a valid, if not 100% correct point..It’s very easy to hate the individual rather than the institution which the individual cowers behind.

Second point - Yes, I can, with a mediocre-ish knowledge on basic history, tell you that companies have and will go out of style throughout the ages. Smart ones? Perhaps not, but there seems to be a trend with corporations and corporate leaders to focus on the short-term - We can see it in, though I hate to bring this up, the environment and pollution, stemming from a desire to increase profit margins in the short term.

Now, how many potatoes do you want mailed to your address?

Xogg wrote:>prez of a conservative region is a liberal non-conservative who votes democrat

can't make this up lol

If you didn’t vote for him that statement would hardly hold truth.

...What? I’m just saying.

Viridus

Post by Furbish Islands suppressed by a moderator.

Xogg wrote:>prez of a conservative region is a liberal non-conservative who votes democrat

can't make this up lol

Honestly we're probably less than 50% conservative at this point

Gagium

Wait, which imbecile removed me from the People's Party in the political parties dispatch?

Gagium

Liberated American Provinces wrote:Honestly we're probably less than 50% conservative at this point

That can’t be?!?

Liberated American Provinces, Viridus

Gagium wrote:That can’t be?!?

True, but we are far from being only conservative

Gagium

Post by Furbish Islands suppressed by a moderator.

Furbish Islands wrote:Didn't you say something about leaving it a while back?

I said I would, but I didn't find anyone to join.

Gagium

Ahh I see Ibenta has made a triumphant return

Viridus, Gagium, Ibenta

What the heeeeeck is happening now

Viridus, Gagium

Ibenta wrote:Think a little about me: fiscally liberal to the point of socialism but socially conservative.

Christan and that can not mix. You can not be christan but force people to give over their goods. Jesus taught to be gladly doing it OF THEIR OWN CHOICE!

Viridus, Gagium, Ibenta, Emerisis, New Mand

The United American-Isreali Empire wrote:Christan and that can not mix. You can not be christan but force people to give over their goods. Jesus taught to be gladly doing it OF THEIR OWN CHOICE!

Clam down.

Viridus, Gagium, Emerisis

The United American-Isreali Empire wrote:Christan and that can not mix. You can not be christan but force people to give over their goods. Jesus taught to be gladly doing it OF THEIR OWN CHOICE!

If I’m not mistaken Jesus literally told people to “give up their goods”

Gagium, Ibenta

Baltimare State wrote:Clam down.

>Did I just fail to type Calm?

Liberated American Provinces, Viridus, Gagium, Ibenta

Assembled with Dot's Region Saver.
Written by Refuge Isle.