Post Archive
Region: Libertatem
Could you verify your stance?
Well than why do animals commit homosexual acts? Why do people feel that way? The bible was written by humans in an ancient time. No one knows if any of it is true. Do you still believe people should be stoned? NOTE: i am not atheist, just agnostic.
You must have miss read it.
It is not mass murder if he did not make the famine intentionally, OK?
Gary Johnson! He'll never win but if he gets 5%, the Libertarians get gov. funding in the next election.
Right-Winged Nation
Post self-deleted by Pangaean Brigade.
Lots of posts I won't read.
Post self-deleted by Pangaean Brigade.
Post self-deleted by Pangaean Brigade.
Post self-deleted by Pangaean Brigade.
Freedom of speech man!
The_New_United_States and Muh_Roads, please change your flags so at least they are accurate in their anti-leftism/mockery of leftism.
If your going to do something, do it right, that's all I ask.
I am opposed to state-sanctioned acts of immorality. If the state is to be involved in marriage at all, which it shouldn't be, then it should engender virtue, and not wickedness. If the state is to be involved in marriage, then state-sanctioned marriage should only be between one man and one woman.
I don't think that the state should be involved in marriage at all, however, and I believe that man should live according to the dictates of his own conscience, and not according to the dictates of unlimited government. I believe that men should be able to practice their beliefs and live their lives however they wish, inasmuch as they do not molest the rights of others. I believe that the government has no place in marriage.
Nevertheless, if I must pick one of two evils, I would prefer government support for morality over government support for immorality.
I know that it's true, and there are many others who do as well.
Regardless, no, people should not be stoned for their sins and The Holy Bible agrees with me.
Don't fall into a statist, government should not dictate morailty man! Well at least you aren't for government control of marriage
But that very quote does say that he intentionally made the famine, and you cleverly snipping out bits and pieces will not change the actual text.
"Although Stalin intentionally let starving people die, it is unlikely that he intentionally caused the famine to kill millions of people. It is also unlikely that Stalin used famine as a cheap alternative to deportation. True, the famine affected Ukraine severely; true, too, that Stalin distrusted the Ukrainian peasants and Ukrainian nationalists. Yet not enough evidence exists to show that Stalin engineered the famine to punish specifically the ethnic Ukrainians. The famine did not take place in an international political vacuum. The sharp rise in the foreign threat was likely to have been an important aggravating factor."
I don't think that government should dictate morality, but I even more strongly oppose the government engendering immorality.
But how do you objectively define what is moral and what is immoral?
Everyone has their own view of what's OK and what isn't. Morality isn't something you can legislate because it is inherently subjective.
How do you know? Unless you have scientific evidence we can't take anything said in the bible as fact to rule over a mass population with.
i'm just happy the bible made sure to clearly condemn things like slavery. really saved us a lot of time.
Pevvania
Abortion is not settled. It's still a horridly divisive issue, and numerous states have moved to create abortion laws that weaken and stretch the boundaries of Roe v Wade. Whether this is a positive thing is up to opinion. But I don't think it's settled. It would probably be a better idea to leave it to the states. The Founding Fathers envisioned the federal government as a tool affecting issues of national consensus, not for endless partisan laws rammed through with the bare minimum of support amongst the public.
Miencraft, Tyrinth, The New United States
Well, I mean, the Papacy seems to do it well, but then again you just come right back to the subjective morality thing, and the fact that I personally think that theocracy is immoral.
I think that in most cases, the government should not outlaw anything that does not harm another person. Abortion is by definition harming the child inside the womb. As for the marriage issue I believe that both marriage between two people of the same sex and even between multiple people should be allowed. You can believe that marriage between two people of the same sex is immoral but you can't force your personal religious beliefs on others as it violates the American value of separation of church and state. I do think that the state should issue marriage licenses to anyone who wishes to commit to marriage as long as they are sobber.
Humpheria In Libertatem
I never pretended to think that it's feasible, or even that we should. I support marriage privatization, first and foremost. I don't like the state sticking its nose in marriage, either way.
Regardless, I intended to have a debate regarding whether or not homosexual marriage is permissible according to Christian doctrine. I did not intend to argue about my beliefs on civil marriage practices or have my Libertarian orthodoxy called into question because of my religious beliefs.
Well supreme court would have to overrule the previous ruling
Although as a market liberal I support marriage equality and abortion's legality (though I think it is immoral), Obergefell V. Hodges had no more to do with the constitution than Roe V. Wade.
As Chief Justice Roberts wrote in his dissent (this is rough paraphrasing) celebrate same-sex marriage, but do not celebrate the constitution; it had nothing to do with it.
pro-life: "so you think states should have the ability to decide whether to murder babies???"
pro-choice: "so you think states should have the ability to take away women's bodily autonomy???"
i can't see it working
*Cough*14th amendment*cough*
I would argue that the phrase "equal protection of the laws" within the context of the 14th amendment refers to criminal proceedings and government services, not governmental recognition of contracts (in this case marriage).
After all, if the 14th amendment applied to the latter a number of issues would arise. For instance, antitrust legislation would likely be unconstitutional as it discriminates between corporations (legal persons) of different sizes.
Graduated income taxes, which discriminate on the basis of wealth, may also be unconstitutional. The point is, this sort of judicial activism stretches the meaning of the amendment and can lead to further issues. Courts should exist to interpret the law and arbitrate disputes, not to legislate.
Correction; the graduated income tax is unconstitutional either way.
Well i don't see supreme court overuling
The issue is that it becomes a constitutional conundrum there is one side the conservative argument that is back by the 10th amendment which is of course is states rights.
on the other side, the liberal side, there is the first, the ninth, the 14th, and the 19th amendments that support the ruling.
Post self-deleted by Alyakia.
income taxes are applied to income not people so it's not unfair or discriminatory at all. you pay the same amount of tax on your first $9,225 as any billionaire would (things like marriage aside). you also pay the same amount of tax on any income above $413,201 as any billionaire would. it just so happens that you don't have any applicable income at that level. you are equal under the law whether you like it or not.
Eh, I don't see how marriage is a free speech or religious issue. Plenty of people are married outside of the church, often by government officials.
The ninth ammendent has never, to my knowledge, been upheld in court. It is regarded by most legal experts as a truism.
I don't see what the right to vote has to do with marriage.
As I said, I support marriage equality but it should've been allowed to pass through the legislatures. Proponents of same-sex marriage were already winning.
Correction; you pay the same percentage. Regardless, the fact that someone who makes 420,000 a year pays a higher percentage than someone who makes 400,000 a year is discriminatory.
So today Hallo Island slammed a brand new four wheeler into a tree at high speeds and went flying through the air.
You could apply that to literally any other issue, from guns to education, and I don't see a civil war, but instead a healthy debate. As Louis Brandeis said, the states act as "laboratories of democracy" to experiment with different policies.
And states have already been doing this about abortion without federal repercussions since the 90s. Some (like South Carolina, if I recall correctly) permit only a handful of abortion clinics in the state, while other states actually subsidise foetus termination.
why? should income over a million be taxed at 10% otherwise that's just unfair? what about tax free allowances? should be abolished, lest they be discriminatory?
I think I'm one of the few people who has no opinion on abortion. To me, the arguments of both sides of the debate are equally strong.
It wasn't completely my fault. Maybe 75%
Pevvania
Well I actually favor the FAIR tax (a 23% flat sales tax with a "prebate" set at the poverty line) because even flat income taxes don't tax evenly. For instance, wealthy retirees with millions in a checking account (and thus no income) aren't taxed.
But yes, deductions should be abolished and would be with the FAIR tax.
Saint Jonas
I strongly oppose the FAIR Tax. Europe has shown us that consumption taxes lead to bigger government.
Difficult to read, but trust me, it's worth it: https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xft1/v/t1.0-9/11403096_49
How? A massive beurocracy is needed to process the current income tax. If anything represents big government, it's the IRS.
Of course, but the one benefit, strangely, over a consumption tax is that it is very visible, and therefore voters care more about their income taxes than their sales or property or excise taxes. Constant (and right) bitching about the income tax means that it has been steadily reduced over time. Consumption taxes are far more 'invisible' to the electorate, which is why European countries have so easily created so many social programs without any political blowback.
As Ron Paul would say, "When I say I want to cut taxes, I don't mean fiddle with the code. Eliminate the income tax and replace it with nothing."
100%
USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA
Pevvania
Ooh, yeah, we won that thing, huh?
Kings Island
Lol some jackass on twitter compared winning the world cup to winning world war II
4 hours ago: The Founder of Liberosia granted posting privileges on the Libertatem Message Board to Delegates and Founders of embassy regions.
Because I don't know who did this, let's just consider this a warning. I haven't heard word from the board, and I made no decision regarding changing this setting. So the communication deregulation act was disobeyed here.
It was not I and the Board has discussed nothing in the matter.
When exactly did you guys remove your password?
Could I have a puppet stay here?
i have no idea what the communication regulation act is but i am happy that embassy posting is back so we can continue to post together (for example, about how north vietnam was right) for months to come.
Its a free region. We don't legislate residents.
*Shakes head*
Hi everyone.
I'm pretty new to the region/NS. The name is Jonas or just J. Been testing the waters since joining, but think I may want to make this place home. Sifting through the laws and counting down the days until I can apply for citizenship. How is everyone today?
First off, thanks for reading the laws. You have no idea how many people just ignore them and decide they'd still get citizenship.
In one case, someone flat out said they didn't want to wait and decided that I'd overturn the waiting period specially for them. So, thanks.
Secondly, could be better, but it's summer so everything could be a lot worse too.
Saint Jonas
Something wrong?
Welcome!
Saint Jonas
Not really, just incredibly tired for no reason that I can divine.
Tired is bad.
I must have been Mien or Condealism. I wasn't on at the time, and I certainly wouldn't violate my beloved CDR Act.
We usually ban enemy militants, but since you seem to be interested in honest discussion rather than antagonising us, I don't see why not. Don't expect to get citizenship, though.
Wasn't me - probably either Mien or the L-man himself. (That gesture was too little, too late anyway.)
I hardly touch Lib anymore, and I certainly would not have done something like that.
I'd bet it's Lib.
Wouldn't put it past him. He probably had no idea where all those posts came from.
Hallo Island
Hello!
Saint Jonas
I was referencing TNUS. I quoted you cause I thought what you said was true
Would be nice if you could point that out.
Still, my point stands. Even if it's hardly a point.
Post self-deleted by Libr.
Ima go buy a Confederate flag.
Saluton!
Saint Jonas
Ugh don't
Yeah, Because free speech shouldn't be allowed if it offends people. :(
Ooh, history lesson time. The confederate flag you know of was never the confederate flag. It was a battle flag. That flag actually came to prominence in the 1950s and 1960s when it was used by the Dixiecrats, a political party that spearheaded a movement to keep America segregated. The actual comfederate flag isn't just about racism. This one is. It is a symbol of hatred and inequality.
Miencraft, Kings Island
Haha, So the US flag isn't a symbol of hate? All the muslim countries we have unjustly invaded, all the people killed by US Imperialism? The Civil war was about unjust taxing, and for the most part, not slavery. Or how about all the kids being brainwashed by the race baiting media who really caused this shooting?
Who said it shouldn't be allowed? You can buy whatever you want, but that doesn't mean you're free from criticism.
Most Democrats are saying nobody should be able to fly it.
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/9/26/government-salesofconfederateflagbanned.html
Post self-deleted by The New United States.
Straw man
Miencraft, Kings Island, Hallo Island
You realized that South Carolina, the first state to secede, did so because Abraham Lincoln was elected as president, and he was an abolitionist, right? The U.S. flag is not a symbol of treason, like the real confederate flag is. The flag you want to buy really has nothing to do with slavery or the civil war. It's about wanting to deny civil rights to African Americans.
Miencraft
Oh, and all states get the same federal taxes. If there was any unjust taxing, it was from the states themselves.
No, that flag was the flag of The Confederate Army. A flag which many southerners, including me, see as a symbol of southern pride, and its more about heritage than hate for us.
http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/secession/
I gotta go anyway
How much do you really want to fly the same flag as the KKK tho
>state agencies
No, it was the battle flag of the northern Virginia army. Crack open a history book, bud. Or at least some Schoolhouse Rock VHS tapes.
Kings Island
http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=25155890#p25155890
http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=346821&p=25155935&sid=20d0d8614f744ead70541d06de4daf53#p25155935
part of the problem is that the confederacy only existed for like 4 years so there is no wiggle room. all that is there is that one period where they were quite pissed off over slavery and the flag making a come back on the state buldings of pro-segregation lobbies during desegregation, which can hardly be considered coincidental.
i mean i like the flag and all, but there really needs to be a new symbol for southern pride
Am i the only one who thinks pulling off the Dukes of Hazard off the air just a wee bit ridiculous
Kings Island
Probably, I just want it off of government buildings. I mean, I wouldn't be unhappy if it was totally eradicated though.
The US flag is not a symbol of oppression, in my opinion. It doesn't matter if the government it represents has done bad things. What matters is what the flag was created for. The US flag was created to represent a secessionist state that fought for liberty. The Confederate flag was created to represent a secessionist state that fought for slavery. So the Confederate flag (which, by the way, was never actually used to represent the country, which changed its flag repeatedly) is offensive and the US flag is not.
And Hallo, the CF flag is not r
The US flag is not a symbol of oppression, in my opinion. It doesn't matter if the government it represents has done bad things. What matters is what the flag was created for. The US flag was created to represent a secessionist state that fought for liberty. The Confederate flag was created to represent a secessionist state that fought for slavery. So the Confederate flag (which, by the way, was never actually used to represent the country, which changed its flag repeatedly) is offensive and the US flag is not.
Spit it out bruh
the CF flag is indeed not r
Miencraft, Pevvania
The CF flag is not treasonous, because that would imply secession is treasonous, which is not always the case. America's founding was an act of secession. It all depends on what the secessionists are fighting for.
Miencraft, Tyrinth
Hello, people of Libertatem. I was told by one of your citizens Cosmo Kramer/Pevvania that this region is the most prominent member of REATO, a militant anti-communist organization that actively engages in a war on tyranny and spreads democracy and liberty throughout NationStates. I initially planned on creating my own inter-regional anti-commie fighting force, but decided to give up the idea after finding out that such fighting force with similar objectives already exists as a a well-established, powerful organization. Hence, I'm here to ask whether I can sign up to join your army so we can together take the fight to commies of all sorts, in other words essentially annihilate everything that is red. I will be sending a nation here shortly to make communication easier.
-NWS
Miencraft
http://fee.org/anythingpeaceful/detail/dont-put-eleanor-roosevelt-on-the-10-bill
Don't put Eleanor Roosevelt on the $10 bill. She was just another naive, economically illiterate laywoman who happened to be married to the president. Harriet Tubman, Ayn Rand or even Rose Friedman would be better choices.
Not Ayn, please...
Republic Of Minerva, Hallo Island
Yeah, she doesn't deserve to be on toilet paper.
Add Robert Nozick and Ronald Reagan to that list.
Pevvania
Assembled with Dot's Region Saver.
Written by Refuge Isle.