Post Archive
Region: Libertatem
No thanks.
:( You're no fun.........
You don't have to be a senator.............
Speaking of parties, do you want to join any of this region's parties? The official factbook is here.
Snoop, I admire your willingness to bring something new to the table, but we've got a few political parties that fit the various ideological niches of this region. The Reaganist Libertarian Party, for example, fits my ideological views very well. (Some policies need tweaking, though.)
But I'll nudge Rallingham, who I'm sure will join your party :)
Snoopy if you'd like I would allow you admittance into my party. It runs very closely to the one you had in mind and the expansion of the reformed DRP would be great.
He meant a forum party, but that works too.
The bath I just had was as lukewarm as Julia Roberts' acting skills.
If you wan't to see some bad acting go see how they tarnished a great book and make a crappy movie called The City of Bones.
Hey, Pev. Have any regions ratified the REAGAN Treaty yet?
If any of you folks here live , or know someone who does live , in my home state of North Carolina then please ask them to support Greg Brannon for U.S. Senate so we can fight Kay Hagan.
gee wish the guy i knew wasnt a liberal
I'll keep that in mind, ISA.
Unfortunately no, Con. ACA is closer than before to taking interest, but on the whole they're still unconvinced. I need to embark on another recruiting run. I realised yesterday that the new Federal Islands might be interested, since they're the same guys who claim to have invented the War on Communism.
ISA, I actually hope the GOP loses the 2014 elections, both because Congressional Republicans are assholes and because it will increase the likelihood of a conservative Presidential win.
I disagree that it will increase a conservative chance in 2016 ( I'm hoping Jim DeMint will run ) but I doubt that we'll win back the senate but we'll definitely gain some seats.
Rand Paul 2016
He's charismatic enough and I support him but I believe Jim DeMint can ignite the conservatives and expand the party. To me he is a potential Ronald Reagan if he runs in 2016.
am i the only one who's feathers are still ruffled over herman cain?
I don't know what that term might mean entirely but if it wasn't for those "sex scandals" then I believe he could have really stopped a Romney nomination. Herman Cain was the Tea Party candidate and a deficit hawk, I originally supported Newt Gingrich but when I got into the primaries it was only Romney, Gingrich , Santorum , and Paul, but now that I look back I really did like Herman Cain. Although part of me wonders what would have happened if Jon Huntsman would have stuck in? The Obama campaign said they were very worried about him the most.
yeah but the libtards were scared to death over a black republican nominee
The Goop's approval rating is at an all-time low not because of their non-existent 'racism', but because they're more stubborn and disagreeable than a bunch of toddlers in a toy store. They fight Obie at every single turn, only ever bargaining if it's absolutely necessary. It's selfish, it's unproductive and it betrays the constituents underneath clowns like John Boehner.
I'd like to see the actions of the Democrats speak for themselves. This, I think, will pave the way for a Republican victory in 2016. There'll be a long line of great candidates, while the liberals only have an uncharisnatic robot and a senile clown.
I too would like to see a Paul Presidency, Liberosia.
And I highly doubt there'll be anyone like Reagan for a long time, ISA. Nobody with his warmth or humor. Nobody with his delegation skills and modesty. Nobody with his inspirational leadership qualities or charisma, or his dedication to small government and freedom. Or his strength, and refusal to take sh!t from anybody. x)
^^^
The world is calling for another Reagan - the work of the previous is being undone as we speak. Eventually someone determined to put an end to socialism and fascism will reluctantly rise to the occasion much the same way Reagan did.
Well Pev I don't know what kind of constituents your looking at because quite frankly when I turn around I see the constituents angry that there isn't more fightning Obama and the democrats. People like Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, Palin, and so many countless Americans want to see the GOP stop trying to appease the democrats and the establishment and actually fight. We loose these elections and approval because the GOP is betraying it's principles just to strike a deal and until we go back to our conservative ways and start fighting back those who operate only to destroy us we will only keep losing.
i think so too and in many ways i know someone who could fit the bill...he would despise the stress though.
I see what you mean, ISA, and the 'middle way' is by no means the correct one in all cases. I understand why they'd want to fight the liberals, but the final action I saw that made me completely disillusioned in the Congressional Republicans was their confrontational reaction to Obama's proposal to privatise the Tennessee Valley Authority. It made me realise that they just want to block Obama at every single turn, even if he proposes something they'd normally agree with.
After reading 'New Deal or Raw Deal?' I've actually come to like Obama. He is a freaking conservative compared to the tyrannical, manipulative, morally bankrupt monster known as Franklin D. Roosevelt. He actually did wage class warfare, frequently attacking the business community. He actually did promise to redistribute national wealth. He actually did use the IRS as a political weapon. Every bad thing done by every President since him, he did and outdid. He used federal relief to literally buy votes, distributing the bulk of it amongst swing states and very little in comparison to the Democratic Solid South. His New Deal programs were rife with corruption, with the Army of Bureaucrats coercing federal workers into voting Democrat. He really did use the IRS as a weapon to drum up false charges against patriots like Andrew Mellon.
My point is that Obama has got so much flak for creating a single major federal program, which is actually a subsiding program rather than it being directly state-funded. He's very much a rightist in comparison to the lesser Roosevelt, probably the greatest politician the world has ever known, and as a consequence a terrible leader and the most destructive President in US history.
Pev, Obama is the current most dangerous threat to America. His Obamacare will destroy businesses and push many Americans into poverty. In comparison he is not as much of a monster as FDR, but he is a socialist who lives to destroy America. He has too used the IRS to target people and used the NSA to spy on us. They could actually be reading our comments right now and I don't understand how you can say, even in comparison to FDR, that Obama is on the right and that you actually like him. If you truely like Rand Paul then you wouldn't be standing up for Obama right now, you would be opposed to his obstructionist agenda instead of acting like John Boehner in a sense.
Indeed. I used to have some major doubts about Obama, but he not only inherited many of Bush's flaws; he inherited some of his strengths as well. Our President does have the capacity to make reasonable and indeed conservative decisions in some cases, and the only things stopping him from doing so are the socialists he surrounds himself with.
It is indeed critical that we reverse Obamacare, but don't those potential results sound a little bit worst-case-scenario to you? We need to know exactly what is wrong with any and all of Obama's proposals (just as we would for anyone else) before we call him out on it...because right now, the only people obstructing anything are the Republicans-in-name-only (or RINOs) that we mistakenly chose to represent us in Congress.
I don't see how you two can defend a president who is set on destroying our values and still consider yourselves to be republicans, conservatives, and libertarians.
i must side with ISA on this one he is no where near Bush Bush was deffinately better than Obama. Bush didn't try to hide scandals Bush didn't hand our healthcare over to the IRS Bush didn't use the NSA to spy on the american people the way Obama has Bush didn't brake as many promises as Obama did Bush didn't promise to give subsidies to small businesses and then fail to Bush didn't promise to make towns in Florida profitable again with a new space program and then shut down the shuttle operation leaving many without a job Bush didn't pass a law that fined you if you didn't get health insurance (that's right the truth about obamacare) Bush didn't spend his first term in office blaiming his predecesor on everything that went wrong and Bush didn't pander to the middle east and Bush certainly DID NOT weaken our relations with Israel. now tell me again how Obama is on Bush's level.
What saddens me is that only now are the conservatives of America rallying against government interventionism and control. I realise they've done it many times before, but if only the US had such passionate individualised back in the time of FDR. It feels like wasted energy. :/
Back to the main topic of discussion: I disagree with the assertion that Obama is a socialist. I hate being 'that guy' but socialism is when the means of production are collectively owned, with the yield of the public workforce being 'equally' distributed amongst the workers.
Now I'm not American (yet), so I'm sure that you have a much better understanding of Obamacare than me. But it's my understanding (correct me if I'm wrong) that his program basically mandates employers, aided by tax credits and subsidies, to cover the costs of healthcare for employees. It's certainly not my preferred system, but it's nowhere near the levels of government control in other countries like Norway and Australia. (This is coming from someone who's had to live under dime store socialism.)
The content of a lot of Barry's rhetoric certainly fuels the Republican bonfire, but if you look at his record he's actually quite a moderate. He's cut funding to NASA in favour of encouraging privatised space travel, he's boosted funding towards veterans, he extended the Bush Tax Cuts in his first term and bragged about giving middle class families an average tax cut of $9,000, he talked about "putting an end to taxpayer-funded bailouts" around the time Dodd-Frank was passed in 2010 (I will actually love him if this has had or will have a permanent effect, but I don't know much about that) and ignored Pakistan while he ordered US Navy Seals to kill Bin Laden, which I consider a Reaganist thing to do. Also, drones.
Don't mistake me for a quasi-liberal, because believe me when I say the Democratic Party is a very bad party in American and general terms, based on contradicting policies and very vague ideological grounds, and there are various things about Barack that I don't like. But frankly, Obama is the best liberal in a field of clowns (Congressional Democrats are dicks too), and if I was a Republican leader I'd be seizing the opportunity to constructively work with the most conservative Democratic President since John F. Kennedy. In fact, I've recently thought about how closely his domestic policies mirror Bush 41's.
Along those lines, I'm hoping that as the US pulls out of Afghanistan he'll be more open to more aggressive action against enemies. I think it'll soon be time for him to lend direct military support to Syrian rebels (without putting boots on the ground, of course) and to finally bomb the shît out of Iran's uranium enrichment facilities.
Foreign interventionist fantasies aside, I do hate Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid and the other shïtheads he surrounds himself with.
ISA, if I have to defend a liberal (a fairly centrist one at that, though) in order to get you to see that the GOP is going down the wrong path, then I'm defending a liberal. It would be one thing if the Republicans were actively seeking alternative measures to Obama's terrible health care strategy, but instead they're all metaphorically yelling "COCK BLOCKED" when Obama so much as suggests legislation of any kind - this needs to change.
Bindy, Bush (the younger one, anyway) was hardly any better than Obama, and should certainly be ashamed of not being his father, let alone Reagan.
Also, where are you getting your facts? Surely you know that:
- Obama's scandals are laughable compared to Bush's. Bush authorized torture of terrorists and prisoners of war, tricked the nation into two wars it didn't need (but that I once supported), and defended his views in the name of a "War on Terror" that didn't eliminate the true threat. And Obama? Allegedly he faked his birth certificate according to a number of conspiracy theorists. There's certainly no clear winner here /sarcasm
- Bush could have corrected a mistake that allowed Obamacare to come into fruition. If he merely modified Congress's budget process so that there were no more reconciliation, not only would Obamacare have become impossible to pass, but his tax cuts would be indefinite like he planned. He did not, and his reasons for that are unknown.
- Unfortunately, the NSA has been infringing upon the rights of American citizens since 9/11, which, as you know, occurred early in the Bush presidency. The worst part of it is, no one called them out on overstepping their authority until the Obama presidency, meaning the horrible invasion of privacy they conducted in secret had no challengers while Bush was around.
- Bush made a lot of promises that appealed to conservatives, the middle class, and proponents of small government during his two presidential campaigns, but he broke them all on his second term with his radically liberal spending agenda. It is the fiscal liberalism he embraced at the end of his presidency that make people consider Obama to be Bush's spiritual successor.
- Small businesses haven't had a real bone thrown to them since the 90's or 80's. The effects of Bush's policies on the economy were dubious, and the same could be said for Obama. At least he tried, though - it's not often you see that resolve from a Democrat.
- Obama may have gotten our hopes up at Cape Canaveral, but his disinterest in the space program is really much the same as Bush's. We haven't had a president eager for space flight in some time.
- Obamacare, I think, is the one difference between Obama and Bush.
- Yeah, Obama might have remarked that Bush screwed some things up (and, in many cases, he did), but to hear what he has to say about Bush now is...well, it's unsettling. It's like they're friends or something. Creepy.
- Ha, Bush did the opposite of pander, and Obama couldn't quite pull our troops out quick enough. At least both of those presidents can claim credit to the death of evil men.
Seriously, to see the similarities between the most recent two presidents is scary indeed. Neither have been very good, but of course Wilson and FDR were far worse. What we should do now is try to make the best of things now, convince the GOP to stop being immature, and hope we get someone like Rand Paul in 2016.
"What saddens me is that only now are the conservatives of America rallying against government interventionism and control. I realise they've done it many times before, but if only the US had such passionate individualised back in the time of FDR. It feels like wasted energy."
THIS. So much this. What's worse is that the Republican party (in Congress, anyway) is full of big-government supporters as well as conservatives. It is, in a sense, wasted energy.
I have to disagree on that, Bindy. The whole premise of the Bush Presidency brings a tear of disappointment to my eye, because it was such a wasted opportunity. Misappropriated tax cuts, weak attempts at minimising government, a random war that tarnished the US's reputation, yada yada yada. You can find all of that in my factbook about my opinions on the GOP.
Bush authored and signed the PATRIOT Act, authorising the jailing without trial of US citizens merely suspected of being terrorists. The NSA revelations were bad, but surely spying on the populace is better than jailing Americans without due legal process on the premise of catching terrorists? I've read (most of) the Constitution, and there's a clause somewhere in there that specifically forbids against this sort of thing happening, because it's the first step to dictatorship.
Most of the middle part of what you've said is fair.
"Bush didn't spend his first term in office blaiming his predecesor on everything that went wrong"
That's a good point. I don't yet know enough about economics to tell you what exactly caused the Great Recession and why it's gone on for so long, but if I were Obama, I would've balanced the budget, tackled the immigration issue, signed a 'NAFTA II' and enacted some real across-the-board tax cuts (in that order) early in my first term when I had control of Congress to stimulate economic growth.
I'm going off subject again. Obie did quite a lot of Bush-blaming during his 2012 campaign, for obvious reasons, but I think that he acted way too desperately, as if his Presidency actually had a challenge. (Which it didn't from the moment Romney became the presumptive nominee.)
"Bush didn't pander to the middle east and Bush certainly DID NOT weaken our relations with Israel. now tell me again how Obama is on Bush's level"
Right on the first two. There's a good argument that Obama is the same as Bush, but I think there are a few key differences.
I side with ISA on this one
*sigh* Again, yes, we could do much better than Obama. But our loss in 2012 is evidence that what the GOP is doing now isn't working. The only real difference between the Republicans and Democrats now is that the Democrats are foolishly siding with Obama on everything he's involved with, while the Republicans are foolishly blocking any attempts Obama makes to cater to them. When the president isn't involved, both parties agree on building up their salaries, making more perplexing legislation, getting in good with corporations, and otherwise promoting big government.
The GOP needs to take a few pages from the Libertarian book.
i have said for almost a year now that the tea party needs to take over as america's major conservative party. the GOP has served its purpose and now needs to step back and let someone else represent the conservative ideal
Dear God no. The Tea Party is everything wrong with modern conservatism - they take the liberals' stereotype of a Republican and take it up to eleven...PROUDLY. I like much of what they stand for, but their whole campaign seems to be "eff centrists/moderates, eff science, eff da poor". If anything, the GOP should embrace an approach to small government that almost any libertarian would subscribe to. (And we can keep fiscal conservatism, because that's awesome.)
The Tea Party is an admirable grassroots force in America that stands up for common since principles and traditions. To say the Tea Party is the problem is to say the majority of oyr republican governors, senators, representatives, and American citizens are the problem. I think the establishment fears us because we're going to cost them their jobs to fight tyranny and stand up to this bulwark of liberal destruction in America.
i don't know enough to support the libertarian party to support it.
This Tea Party is in no way a majority, and I say that even as a conservative libertarian. To stand for the level of social conservatism this "grassroots movement" does without so much as drawing attention to fiscal conservatism is in complete defiance of common sense. The establishment "fears" even more nuts who will defy any chance for the two main parties to diplomatically agree on anything that doesn't involve making the government more corrupt.
And what's this about liberal destruction? Liberalism cannot be destroyed any more than conservatism can be destroyed; the key here is tolerance without acceptance - to recognize there are liberals and to respectfully disagree with most of what they say regardless.
Then learn, Bindy: http://www.lp.org/
I actually think you might like them.
oh i see
No CI liberals are destroying our tradition and principles, they exist only to take and destroy. They are like barbarians in a political form and it's disgusting how you attack the fuel of the republican party and stick up for the establishment.
It's remarkable how on the same page we are ideologically, Con.
But I disagree with you on a couple of things. I consider myself a moderate libertarian, but I am authoritarian on the subject of Gitmo and 'enhanced interrogation techniques'. Torturing POWs is in most cases very bad and makes the US look like the bad guy. But the POWs captured in the Middle East are not run-of-the-mill young soldiers who 'just want to go home and see their mommas again'. No sir. They are evil, evil people who fight brutally to preserve their regressive anti-everything practices. Women, Jews, Christians, Westerners, capitalists, communists, different sects of Islam for frick's sake. They're cowards who torture and murder civilians home and abroad to wage war. Although they deserve to be tortured anyway, the information held by prisoners could be invaluable to preventing another 9/11 or simply saving a few dozen troops or civilians. So in a nutshell, I would approve of the torture of voluntary murderers only if it saves lives.
It's hard to imagine an alternative to war in the post-September 11th world. Obviously, the Iraq War was totally unnecessary and hindered Bush's foreign flexibility later in his Presidency. But I think that some kind of military response was the right thing to do, although it could have been executed much better. If I was the Shrub, I would have got in, toppled the Taliban, scoured the country for Bin Laden, transfer power to a democratic government, then got out, with funds going to support the military, while the CIA worked with international governments to locate Bin Laden. But instead, he got America, England and loyal puppy dog Australia drawn into an overly long conflict.
Funny how Bush condemned nation-building in his 2000 campaign.
"Neither have been very good, but of course Wilson and FDR were far worse."
It's funny, because I actually used to be a Democrat (I was always interested in US politics; I care little about the politics of Britain or Australia) before veering more to the centre in thinking 'the left isn't really leftist in America; there have been many good Republican Presidents and many good Democratic ones'. But only recently I've realised there have actually been very, very few good liberal Presidents. Truman, Kennedy, Clinton... Ermm... Wow, they are a truly shītty party.
"What we should do now is try to make the best of things now, convince the GOP to stop being immature, and hope we get someone like Rand Paul in 2016."
The Congressional Goopers are very immature, but there are some pretty great state Republican Parties.
The only bad things about Rand is that he isn't as libertarian as I'd like and he does cock-block a fair bit of Obama's agenda like most of his peers. But I think he's the one the GOP needs to change the party for the better.
"THIS. So much this. What's worse is that the Republican party (in Congress, anyway) is full of big-government supporters as well as conservatives. It is, in a sense, wasted energy."
It is well and truly beyond me why so many conservatives as well as liberals admire FDR. Newt Gingrich, the Boehner of the 90s, once called him 'the greater President of the century'. I haven't even seen Fox News attack him. Documentaries and fact-based fiction change opinions, and I think we'll start to see a shift in approval ratings once a prime-time show is aired showing the true FDR. The guy who out-corrupted Nixon. The guy who out-socialism'd Obama. The guy who knew less about economics than Mussolini.
(Sorry for the time its taking me to respond, I'm on iPod.)
ISA, the only thing the Tea Party is fueling is a flame war. We can't stand up for our principles if the people on our side make a mockery of them! We can't claim to be for the middle class if we stick our noses up at the poor (or the rich), we can't have disestablishment with all of this social conservatism going on, and we can't have democracy (you know, the thing you love so much) without an opposition to respectfully and peacefully debate against. The Republicans stand for the honor of tradition and reasonable anti-federalism, and to rush headlong against anything that isn't radical is an affront to both of those things.
The republicans are the Tea Party. To be against the Tea Party is to be against the average American that conservatism allied from Maine to Hawaii by Reagan, and the average American that lives today and holds the torch for true conservatism.
It's great to see a good debate going on here! :)
I'm with Con on this one. The Tea Party have admirable goals, like the current GOP does, but their execution of them is poor. They seem to think that balancing the national budget is as easy as slicing bread, and are the reason why Congress got such crappy politicians in 2010.
No, CI. The Goop should half the frickin' Libertarian book. They have so many good ideas. But not their foreign policy, which is just stupid. And I also don't see how legalising heroin could lead to anything good at all. Drug crimes are not 'victimless', they not only have the potential to destroy the life of the user but also the lives of whoever the user thinks should 'try this shît'. The harm that could be done to children is especially worrying. I don't want to live in a world where a kid gets allowance from their parents to go out to the local 'candy shop' to buy 'shrooms before bringing a prostitute into the schoolyard to show everyone his new 'girlfriend'.
(Hookers should be legalised for adults, though. Not something I personally agree with, but individual responsibility and all that.)
Reagan would be ashamed of what the Republican Party has become. As I wrote in the factbook I mentioned, the Goop has interpreted 'man is not free unless government is limited', as 'let's try cutting everything to prove a point, apart from the military budget', and 'peace through strength' as 'let's whip out the Freedom Cannons and paint the Middle East red, white and blue!!!!'
he was the gipper not the goop
ISA, the Tea Party and the Republican Party are two separate entities. They are similar in goals but different in practice.
Pev, yeah, I know! It's exciting to have a debate here. And I agree.
Bindy, he's calling the GOP the goop, not the gipper.
oh ok looked like the same reference
I'm not referring to them as the Goop in a derogatory fashion, it's just fun to say. :P
Sad to see that Coolidgestein has CTE'd. I never really knew him, but from what I understand he was a long-term resident and a good fella. He was also named after a great President.
It's time to start recruiting again, guys. We've let ourselves slip into the early eighties again. I hope we can get to the mid nineties by September.
But if we're going to be in the mid nineties, we'll have to deal with the Clinton scandals again! *rimshot*
You just had to, didn't you Con? :P
Lewinskygate was as legitimate and well-founded as trying to get a traffic violater in prison for life. Who gives a crap what the President gets up to in his personal life? Although Clinton did handle it quite badly; I would have either told the truth straight up or pled the Fifth.
Still, it wasn't as morally baseless as the Iran-Contra Affair. "You tried to free American hostages and gave arms money to anti-Marxist freedom fighters? Traitor!"
Ever think what it'd be like in the 100's though? I think we can settle with Reagan, Bush, and Clinton.
lol
The difference between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party are the extremes: the Republicans happen to contain decently hardcore conservatives/libertarians and the Democrats happen to contain in their Party socialists and corporatists. I cannot believe the softness with which some of you entreat our current President, Barack Obama. Ideologically, he is a socialist: practically, he makes his best efforts to use the power of the State to regulate, tax, and subsidize industry to shape it to his (and his Party's) will. His one redeeming quality is restraint on military spending, but look around the world and you'll find that this President is drone crazy: his fascist tactics empower terrorism against the American nation with the massive amounts of civilian casualties he has caused. Obama could perhaps be called the "neo-neo-conservative" on foreign policy because of his ruthlessness.
From Obamacare (which effectively brought under federal control 17% of the United States's economy), to the Card Act, to Dodd-Frank, to the stimulus, to the second stimulus, to massive general increases in the size of federal spending, abuse of executive power, countless scandals, tax increases, etc. this President could be put in the top worst Presidents in our history. He just barely loses the spot of second worst to LBJ.
It is important also to compare the practical implications of fascism and socialism in the economy. If we define fascism as State regulation (force but not expropriation), this effectively brings under federal control some aspect of industry in the economy. And here-in lies the irony; fascism is really no different than socialism in an economic sense. In the end, the objective is to bring the economy under State control, which is what this President has done countless times. We may define socialism as having a more egalitarian flavor than traditional fascism, but this only supports my view of Obama's fascism. The Affordable Care Act is meant to redistribute wealth from those with it, to those who do not purchase health insurance: socialism to anyone with anything but the most rigid definitions and framework.
Lastly, I will not stand for socialism in my country. The GOP has a mandate in the House of Representatives, a mandate to block fascism and socialism in America. Government programs, once launched, with few exceptions, are never abandoned; they simply continue to poor resources into them. In this light, I want the Republicans to block legislation in Congress that will further the Democratic agenda against freedom and free markets. Sure, the GOP is far from perfect; they did screw up the first time. But as it stands, in the current political landscape, the GOP is the best bet for retaining freedom in the American nation.
Economically, fascism is the same thing as socialism in that it strives to a common goal. Obama has on multiple occasions said he favors a socialist healthcare system (if he were starting from scratch). Food stamp spending under this President is also off the chart (a subsidy, as it were). Obamacare does increase the size of government programs (perhaps more fitting into the definition of what socialism is), but that pales into comparison to the fascist regulations imposed by the law on the personal affairs of citizens and on competition. The effect of Obamacare will be to cartelize industries in this nation. It is nothing short of centralized control in that it makes it ever so harder to begin a small business in this environment.
In a more personal sense, observe the effects of socialism and fascism on the entrepreneur. Fascism: regulations force the man to do what the State wants, not what he wants with his business. Even though the man may hold the "deed" to his business, it is not under his control and he is an indirect worker for the State. Socialism: a bureaucrat is in control of any operation, directly responsible to the State.
So the difference lies in indirect control over industry vs. direct control. Practically, there is no moral, economic, or reasonable difference between these two. The difference lies in the legislative guidelines created by the STATE to mask its ultimate goal of direct control. Obama, as an agent of the State (and socialism), uses the tools AT HIS DISPOSAL to take steps towards a collective economy.
Saying that Obama cannot be a socialist because he didn't centralize all industries is outrageous. In the Republic, one man cannot just do whatever he wants. Some Democrats still had consciences at the time Obamacare was passed and Republicans still existed.
By any reasonable standard, Barack H. Obama could be deemed, in the traditional sense, a socialist.
I was hopeful for us to get to 100 nations by the end of the summer, but without an organised effort it won't be possible, unless someone starts 'boosting' the region with puppet nations. We cater to quite a specific ideological niche, so it's quite difficult to find newly created minarchist nations from recruiting once in a while, let alone holding onto them.
I think it's time for the remaining Managerial seat to be filled. I'd strongly recommend that Condealism take the role of Manager of State. Even though he's been an exceptional Internal Affairs Manager, I like his foreign policy positions and think he'd be a skilled diplomat. ISA would be a great candidate for Board Chairman or even Internal Manager, considering his wealth of experience in regional affairs.
Also, I very much would still like to see the REAGAN Treaty Organisation created (see my factbook), but my problem is finding regions interested in joining the fight against the Reds. Most minarchist regions are non-interventionist, and those that are are few and far between.
Starting on Wednesday, I'll embark on renewed efforts to persuade at least three regions to join REATO, which is neccessary for operations to begin. I will approach the new Federal Islands, but I can't think of many other regions that would be interested. Can anyone give me some suggestios?
"I think we can settle with Reagan, Bush, and Clinton."
As in on our opinion on them?
the freedom isles?
Back when I was in the Federal Islands we had a Recruitment Adviser and although I hate a larger government role I think establishing a Manager of Recruitment with 2 helpers would be a good idea. If you all like this idea then I can create a bill and vote on it.
i like it
"the Republicans happen to contain decently hardcore libertarians"
Do they? I'd like to believe this, but I'm starting to think that the word gets thrown around too much, since fellas like Ted Cruz and Paul Ryan are starting to be dubbed as libertarian, when they're pretty consistent with the party line. To quote the YouTube agorist whose name escapes me, "Then I suppose Obama is a libertarian Democrat? And Stalin was a libertarian Communist? And Hitler - he was a libertarian Nazi."
"I cannot believe the softness with which some of you entreat our current President, Barack Obama."
Don't get me wrong, I don't love him or anything. His foreign policy weakness, hesitation to actually tackle gay rights, contradicting positions on corporate welfare and reluctance to enact wide-ranging spending cuts really irritate me. But I don't think he's anywhere near as leftist as people say he is, and has got an unneccessary amount of flak. I've said this before and I'll say it again - if you want to see real socialism, come to Europe.
As I said yesterday, it's well and truly beyond me why FDR is adored by so many conservatives as well as liberals; the rhetorical onslaught against Obama feels like a misappropriated release of built-up energy the GOP has harboured since FDR.
I agree with most of what you're saying, but I still wouldn't say his politics even border socialism. His regulatory efforts haven't been introduced to control industry; they've been enacted on the grounds of environmentalism and 'fairness'.
"Government programs, once launched, with few exceptions, are never abandoned; they simply continue to pour resources into them."
Very true. In the words of Ronald Reagan, "A government program is the closest thing to eternal life we'll ever see."
I'm not disillusioned by the Congressional Goop's blockage of liberal agenda. I'm disillusioned by their immaturity, constant politicking and general unproductiveness. They brag about fiscal responsibility, yet they object even if the smallest cuts to Defense are made. Their tax plans are vague and don't go far enough. They've spouted so much rhetoric about downsizing government, but instead of actually putting their ideas into practice they go on ill-conceived, erroneous and inevitably futile campaigns like 'abolish the IRS' and 'try to defund Obamacare for the 40th time!' They're very good at picking holes in the President, but they can't fill them with their own ideas. They obstruct, but they don't create.
ISA, that's a good idea.
Rand Paul made a balanced budget, there are libertarians in the House. I know my terms, Pev, and I know who I'm talking about.
Your assessment of Obama is incorrect. He did the most he good do with the tools at his disposal to force the country to a leftward direction. Ideologically, he IS a socialist. Since fascism is merely watered down socialism, his Presidency is just the next stepping stone to the ultimate goal.
I must say when it comes to government that most conservatives are actually libertarian but we don't stand for the social erosion and the abolishment of natural order like a lot of them do.
this reagan said something about libertarianism being at the heart of conservatism *searches pockets* darn i had that quote somewhere
Yes, Ronald Reagan stated, "I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism".
and now i understand why
The Libertarian Party just has so many good ideas.
I agree most of what they say on economics and the role of government but I'm scared that if they take control there will be an overthrow of order and justice.
Says the guy who was complaining about the establishment. Really? Just...really? Isn't that a part of the point?
Well CI order and justice has nothing to do with the establishment, it has to do with natural order and safety for others. I like limited government in economics and most social policies but I believe that the government must defend us from harm, in reason, from things to drugs on the streets to terrorism abroad. So I'm not being hypocritical or siding with the establishment, I'm siding with common sense and reason.
i am in complete agreement with ISA
My mistake, Liberosia.
La Pas really is an asshole. You went over to The Internationale in a completely friendly manner asking for a debate, and in response he cries "ERMAGURD CAPITALIST!!!" and banjects you. That is the height of ignorance and rudeness.
can someone help me respond to a libertarian who thinks reagan was the worst president and that conservatism is anti-freedom?
I've gotta run now, but when I get back I'll address what you've said.
ok
You been talking to those anarcho-communists, Bindy? Don't believe their lies - they're as libertarian as Soviet Russia with the economic and personal freedoms they seek to suppress in favor of light and transient causes.
lol no communists make my blood boil
They call themselves "leftist libertarians". More like sheep-like contrarians.
Socialists advocate the use of force to create a free society......
......wut
yup and thats why i laugh at them
I like to believe that if we enact open and free markets with communist countries it will lead them to open markets too and hopefully they will turn to a democratic capitalist society. I think it's working with China for example, technically they're still communists but we all know that they're steaming ahead with capitalism and will lead the world soon in economic strength because of it. The problem with our China America relationship is that they basically have stock in our treasuries so if they fled from that we'd be even more bankrupt, but if we stopped buying their products it would cripple their entire economy.
I sent this to La Pas. Hopefully they will see the need to rectify the situation.
Is there some sort of court I can plead my case to in the Internationale?
Background: I am no longer involved in the government activities in my region (I am now a private citizen), so this is NOT espionage in anyway.
Additionally, I am offended by my freedom of speech being rejected without so much as an inquisition to my being in your region or purpose there in. Let me be clear: communists of all shades have entered Libertatem, writing inflamatory remarks (etc.), and we made sure they were not banjected without a fair trial, even with the existence of the PATRIOT Act.
I request a non-ban for this nation so I may repost on your RMB.
Thanks,
Liberosia
The term 'left libertarian' makes as much sense as 'moderate jihadist'. I have no problem with people establishing communes or co-operatives, but when you force socialism on entire communities it defeats the point of freeing the workers. The logic behind socialism is based on 19th Century socioeconomic conditions - before welfare, before safety regulations, minimum wage laws, etc. It assumes that all Western economies are run on the backs of child labourers and peasants who risk their lives daily in their workplaces just to earn five cents a day for 18 hours of work. Meanwhile, the greedy pig-dog capitalists above them use the bones of dead babies as shoes and smoke rolled up money, living a life of luxury and effectively controlling the legislature.
This is a totally inaccurate depiction of modern liberal economies. The only places where socialism would have any relevance would be Third World countries and China, yet in the end it would simply be replacing one form of tyranny with another.
I believe La Pas is an authoritarian rather than a libertarian (i.e. she'd be Stalin instead of George Orwell). Their RMB rejects (my own personal) the view of freedom of speech for all people. It follows their hypocrisy that they would silence every opinion not of their own and call it "freedom" and "justice".
But how can such a society be free and just? The distinction is their view of the State and the Individual. Economically, we all know they are fascists. Politically, they vary on how far their authoritarian views range. Liberal Democratic Socialists, are, for example, more tolerable than the Bolsheviks.
It strikes one as fundamentally incorrect to advocate a Revolution whose members killed millions (through bad economics and malice) and destroyed the lives of many around the world, trapping them in poverty or allowing them to die...or putting them to death. It begs the question: who are the real fascists? At least fascists believe in a semi-free economy. This begets some consumer choice (therefore, partial freedom). The Communists seek to control how one lives materially by controlling the economy.
To me and any other free person, I would NOT: want the State to decide what I eat, what I wear, how I live, what my job is, how to administer my healthcare, how to raise my children, where I live, etc., etc.
NO! What rational person can stand for such a totalitarian system? At the LEAST the socialists keep alive some entrepreneurial capitalism (although regulated and on life support); but this intolerant ideology of Bolshevism cannot legitimately be called even a society. It is fascism, pure fascism.
I believe the communists need to check their own beliefs. Capitalism does not align with fascism. Communism does.
I have sent this to La Pas after she banned my TG's too....do these people even know what they're doing? XD
Stalin,
First of all, I do not seek "quarter" in your region, merely the right to post invitations to stimulate real world intellectual debate.
Second, if I may sift through your repetition, I concede I am anti-communist; just as you are anti-capitalist.
Third, there is a difference between a role playing game and actual human beings conversing with each other. I have never had a problem with socialists and communists exercising invitations in my region. Although, the quality of their language was less than positive (i.e. negative, for those of us who do not like numbers).
Fourth, I don't have a problem with my banjection, but where is the legality? Where was I allowed to publicly state my case for entrance as a non-governmental civilian?
It astonishes me to witness the hostility received from some of the authoritarians like you and your region regarding a single comment that was neither spam, inflammatory, or related to espionage. A simple look at our RMB will show that I have abdicated governmental power.
Your position is therefore summed up into this: competing ideologies should not engage in debate.
It is obvious we are the more accommodating and polite people; I actually invite you to post invite you to post invitations for debate on Libertatem's RMB. But your suppression of ideas will not serve as a good precedent for any kind of future.
Sincerely,
The Capitalist Pig - Liberosia
P.S. What? You refuse to accept my telegrams right now? Why are you being so rude? If you seek reciprocity, it can be done though discussion. I really do hope you don't keep my telegrams on you ignore list.
Wow. I never thought I'd see the day when UCR looked good compared to the Internationale; I mean, UCR was so polite when we were attempting to defuse the war situation, while we didn't even have a dispute with the Internationale and they kicked you out anyway.
The Internationale , from what I've seen , simply need to be , contrary to my belief , invaded , raided , and then the region simply needs to be disbanded or however that happens. A large group of communists and other authoritarian figures like that are a danger to our beliefs and must be dealt with.
Might want to talk to Pevvania about that, ISA.
I guess their attitudes reflect their losing positions in the War.
La Pasionaria is a fascist.
I think we, as a region, should formally come out with a statement defining what communism vs. fascism truly is. I think we may be making some unnecessary enemies with some anarcho-syndicalists and anarcho-communists who just want to live peacefully in their own communes and not use the power of the State to enforce their version of how society should be run.
As most of us here are minarchists or anarchists (libertarians or different sorts and conservatives), we tolerate the existence of such a commune if only it does not violate the rights of another individual or attempt to use the State, or attempt to become the State.
This paper may help us attract more support for our cause in that, truly, we are condemning Bolshevism and fascism. We are truly against the State and its authoritarian use of power both in the economy and in our personal lives. This distinction would be beneficial, and can help frame the struggle and the Individual vs. the State.
I think you should come up with a statement then Liberosia and we all get a chance to read it and then vote on your idea of submitting it or not within a 2 day time period.
All right, we could pass it like an act of the House. I'll begin working on it.
i like that
Sorry I havent been on, so anyone interested about the party? Sorry!
what party?
Assembled with Dot's Region Saver.
Written by Refuge Isle.