Post Archive
Region: Libertatem
yes. yes, they do. its nice meet so many 20ish-ers that eager to restore America back to being a free country. they (the Trumpsters at least) don't like being the most enslaved generation since 1865. youthful zeal, not a lot of wisdom. but they like to learn, and they love to read real books on paper (that don't have pictures), paper cuts and all.
it would be nice to pass the torch to more incubated with the love of Liberty, but it is what it is. At least that generations isn't so silly as to think that everyone wants to be free and is shrewd enough to realize that most people either don't have their best interests at heart, or that even the best of intentions lead to hell-holes like California.
Some of them were in a book club that was going through Levin's American Communism. The book is worth reading as long as they follow through on chapter seven. I gave them Bastiat's the Law (some had already read), Read's I Pencil, Hazlitt'sEcon in One Lesson, and Paul's Liberty Defined (hardcopies) to read and pass to each other. Most were Ron Paul deprived, hopefully they will take some interest in him.
I wanted to type something about the trillions welcome-back-carter bill and frankenstructer bill monstrosities but it is too depressing.
It just seems like Democrats cannot get it out of their head that people are not property that can be treated like mere chattel. Human infrastructure is donwright insulting. They couldn't keep their slaves on their plantations, now they want to turn all of America into their plantation, human infrachattel and all.
You cannot run, and you cannot hide because they will put you in their welfare state and if you don't want to go, you are an evil thisist, thatist, and the-other-thingist and a thisphobe, thatphobe; theotherphobe and whatever false accusations they can make to intimidate you into compliance.
I am done ranting now. Time to take these thoughts and formulate them into an essay. Something actually persuasive. Have a goodnight all.
My experience with young Trumpists does not involve people who like to read (books, not extremely short political propaganda, online). Its definitely not with the liberty loving, just the opposite. Strongmen, anti-secularism (not piety though, oddly), racism, etc.
Maybe its geographical.
Auxorii, Rateria
Probably. Those who love Liberty here tend to be theists, although there are a few atheists. The greater preponderance of Atheist here tend to be Marxists/Socialists, and are on a mission to turn Idaho into a San Francisco Statist hell-hole.
Like me, this part of the country is still tentatively connected to their pre-democrat yankee and midlands heritage (sans the California transplants and LDS crossovers). Most parents of whom homeschool and regularly attend a non-anti-intellectual church. Over 75% are still theist, grow up familiar with the works of the puritans, the scottish enlightenment philosophers and read our founding fathers (and whom they recommended as well). It wasn't until 1978 that they (statist Progressives) kicked the curricula based on the one created by our Founding Fathers (including prayers and bible reading) out of the public schools here and turned them into the Liberty hating Fabian Socialist/Dewey Progressive Modern Education that was unlawfully legislated from the bench starting with New York City in 1959 iirc.
For those in this State about my age and older, our school was an actual public school, and we could not graduate the 6th grade until we showed mastery in the rudiments of logic, reason, and rhetoric (rhetoric meaning truthful communication skills). Many of us have never bought into the atheist good/ theist evil propaganda of the early/(proto) socialists shoved down America's academic throats by 19th Century Prussian Socialists that tried and succeeded fundamentally transform our public schools into state schools. They add insult to injury by still calling it public school when nearly all are now thoroughly nationalized hell-holes that are public school in name only. They are state schools creating Statists, but i digress.
I typed all that because the expression of Christianity practiced by American Mainline Christianity that brought about the American Revolution created the freest nation the world has ever known, and we are not ashamed of that. In nascent form it developed into the bible-thumping, tongue talking, gun toting, Liberty loving abolitionists (like Tubman) that demanded that no one be a slave, and on down to suffrage, and keeping the Democrats from their lawless attempts at ignoring the Emancipation amendments by insisting on the Civil Rights Acts. This expression of Biblical Christianity on the right side of history and the theist side of the renaissance (conveniently ignored or villified by Socialist/Marxist revisionism with their false dichotomies and dialectic determinism) is not only conducive to Liberty, but manifests it because the God of the Bible is the God of Liberty. Liberty is Theist in its underpinnings. Once Christians come to power we are commanded to proclaim Liberty throughout the Land . It is what our Founders did. Just because this doesn't happen more often isn't the fault of Christ but of human weakness. We may argue over what that Liberty looks like civilly, but that is in custom and policy of which the Legislature should have as little input as possible.
addenda Christianity and Liberty
Christianity is about emulating God, the freest and happiest being convceivable (and ineffably (Classical theological term, not Marxist term) inconceivable), by loving God and what God is (Truth, Justice, Love, Liberty Beneficence etc.). We love God with our whole being and (express our love for God and his attributes) by loving our neighbor as much as we love our self (i.e, treating others how to we want others to treat us) which is sublimely conducive to not just truth, justice, and goodness, but to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness (which includes property) as well. It is demonstrated by the first amendment protecting basic church function that is the right to freedom worship God (or not) according to the dictates of one's own conscience). Socialists/Marxists have controlled the narrative for so long that just like a Woke-ist with their "Ew, Orange Man Bad!" Trump Derangement Syndrome, the cultivated response to the Evangelical Christian Humanist Objective Realist who is Secular and Spiritual equally both is, "Ew, Bible Man bad" Christianity despising sentiment. Neither are true, and both confuse, confound, and obfuscate actual and needful criticism that is conducive to mutually beneficial conversation.
LDS crossovers? I'm confused by that.
I disagree strongly with this view.
A great many of our founders (I would say half or a majority of the important ones) were not Christians. The direct cause of the revolution, which was Common Sense, was written by a very vocal anti-Christian, the author of the Declaration of Independence was a deist who would go on to be elected President, and would privately converse with another non-Christian founding father and president, John Adams, about the dangers Christianity posed to the future of the nation and a dislike for the religion. Men like Franklin would take it a step further and make up parts of the Bible because they were unsatisfied in its ability to promote liberty. Revolutionaries like Ethan Allen. Others, like George Washington expressed deistic tendencies, didnt participate in Christian practices with any frequency, and were guarded about their beliefs, so I would not think myself in error to doubt a Christianity that was more than political show. George Washington himself had a resolution written, which would be passed under his successor unanimously, which outright stated that this country was not founded upon the Christian religion.
Auxorii, Rateria
Not entirely related, but I would agree with Edmund Randolph, who felt that the reason for American liberty, especially religiously, was due to the fact of the great diversity in belief, so that to favor any one particular sect as more American than the others would be ridiculous, and effectively stopped by the supermajority of disagreeing sectarians. All manner of Christians, Jews, Deists, Atheists, Muslims or pagans could exist at all levels of society and government. American religious liberty would be forever guaranteed so long as no sect could gain such a significant following to dominate the others.
The danger today comes from the rise of Evangel Protestantism and Atheism.
Auxorii
And who has been warning you about all of these threats? Damn prods.
Have you considered running for school board or any other local office? Thats the best way to fight back
Narland, Auxorii
Those crossing over from Utah to Idaho (used of those who assume that Idaho is an appendage of Utah, or mistakenly believe that Idaho has the same cultural hearth as Mormonism. We do not, although since the 1960s (or thereabouts) they became the majority of residents.
Just of just built a wall and made Utah pay for it
Methinks the best option for Idaho is to be so obnoxious that Utah wants to build a wall and make us pay for it.
It is an excellent way to fight back. Taking controll of all of academia and returning to Constitutional education post haste is a priority.
It has been pointed out that I have very low tolerance in administration for liars, cheats, fools, machinationists, those who won´t at least thumb through a blasted parliamentary procedure manual, or remain willfully ignorant in understanding as to what it is that their job description entails. How the freak does a person run for office and not have a clue as to what is required of them? Or refuse to understand that their job in this blessed country is to provide a public service while being as unobtrusive as possible? The people are individuals with their own hopes, goals, dreams, and problems, they don't need overbearing bullies masquerading as public officials adding to their problems. I become irascible, cynical, and effused with sarcasm. Eventually I become so depressing not even goths and blues artists want to hang.
I encourage and help friends and acquaintances better suited and qualified to run at various local, state and county elections. One even made it to Congress. :) This person became good friends with Ron Paul. :joy: I am involved with a coalition that help organize individuals to run for school boards, and am heavily with a home-school cooperative that we hope to expand into other areas.
Well to be fair, Franklin and Bear Lake county were heavily settled by LDS pioneers prior to Idaho even being made into a territory (and some even before that area was owned by the US). When Paris was settled, for instance, many of the inhabitants thought they were in Utah. (My 3rd Great-Grandfather among them). Those parts of Idaho, and others mainly in South-Western Idaho (especially along the Wasatch Range), are heavily linked both culturally, historically, and familially to those who settled Utah. Idaho isn't Utah, but Latter-Day Saints are not foreigners or late-comers to Idaho, Latter-Day Saints have been there just about as long as anyone else who would claim deep roots in Idaho. Especially those who arrived before the Trans-continental railroad.
(Also most Latter-Day Saints who are native to Idaho and Utah are either descended from European converts (mostly England and Scandinavia) or they are the descendants of the initial New England population of the Church. Which would mean they are descended from pre-Democrat Yankees. In my experience most Latter-Day Saints hold to that heritage pretty strongly, even those who may not have been descended from them.)
Why would anyone be proud of New England yankee heritage is beyond my ability of understanding.
I mean, the American Revolution?
Auxorii
Yankees suck. Neuengländer haben den Dachsstaat ruiniert.
Republic Of Minerva
New England protestant yankees ruined the US. Just saying
By creating it they ruined it
New Englanders didnt create the US.
No, but they sure were aif not thedriving force behind the revolution.
Auxorii
What ruined the US was the destruction of states rights, the march of socialist regressive policies (named progressive in a brilliant example of newspeak), and the overall laziness and lack of caring given by a good number of the populace. The left is at war with us and too many are only just now realizing it. Conservatives and libertarians ceded too much and now the whole culture is under or close to Marxist control.
Miri Islands
If you were to believe half the people here, Teddy Roosevelt was literally Trotsky.
Hey all. It has been a busy week. I will gladly answer the Yankee hate sentiment once things slow down (or speed up) as the case may be. I hope you all had a good week.
As you know I respectfully disagree to your terminology that frames the discussion. It is very enjoyable conversing with you (and just about everyone in Libertatem) especially when sharing in dialog. It has taken a few days during some free time to write this response and whittle it down from 22 paragraphs to 16. I do not think I can redact it further without losing coherence. If it is too much to read I understand. I will post it in chunks.
Auxorii, Rateria
The Big Picture
This is the rub between a dialectic and traditional view of history, specifically the Marxist infused (all too common in Postmodern American Academia). The Marxist influenced variety as a philosophical imperative is predisposed to create division, dissension and hate where there is none as long as it can be inculcated as friction and heat to the next generation as a moved goalpost (synthesis). History, historiography and the history of historiography objectively testifies to a different understanding than that allowed by Marxists.
By Christian in the political sense, I mean the historic generic definition used by Christianity since Antioch, through the Reformation, by the American Colonies, our Founders and that one of the Founder's (Webster) put into his dictionary when used in the (nonecclesiatical) sense. It is the one used generally up to WW2 and then denied by Marxists/Atheists and Fundamentalists vociferously alike especially since the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s.
If one wishes to use the ecclesiastical (narrow) definition of Christian in the American body politic since the 1960s, or regarding Marxist usage in the United states (in their attempt to use Progressivism to transform the US into a Marxist/Socialist State) since the 1950s i will grant that definition in those contexts. Just as ecclesiastical in opposition to secular contexts necessitate the ecclesiastical definition. But when a traditional American of the WWII generation or earlier (especially before the 1960s) uses the general term to refer to America in general, i grant that definition, as they do not mean what those influenced by Marxist dialectics thinks it means. Christian means Christian in the generic (general) sense, and not the ecclesiastical sense unless made clear by context.
We can agree (i hope) as to the ecclesiastical definition of Christian, that is: a person holding to the tenets of Jesus Christ. That doesn't mean they are sinless like Christ, it means that they in whatever capacity believe that it is their duty as a human being to love God with their whole being, love their neighbor as much as they love themselves and express it by treating others in the same way they themselves want to be treated (The central tenet of Christ). They do so as best they can within the limits of their human frailty. They trust in Christ for their salvation despite their errant selves and like their fellow congregants strive to emulate Christ in their daily lives (according to their respective understanding). Technically, a Christian can only trust God for his own salvation and must give gracious credence to anyone else who names the name of Christ. That definition (holding to the tenets) suffices for internecine (in-house) discussions of orthopraxy amongst Christians when discerning who is properly orthodox amongst ourselves. It is insufficient for societal consideration.
Webster's New World Dictionary of the English Language (1828) -- Christian: 4. In a general sense, the word Christians includes all who are born in a christian country or of christian parents. Christians still use this definition as long as the person in the community does not specifically repudiate the Christ. They may repudiate their denomination, the clergy, the establishment, their understanding of the bible, their understanding or misunderstanding of doctrine, dogma, custom, and creed, so long as they do not repudiate Christ, are Christian in the generic sense of the term nonetheless. Grammatically i think it more proper to use a lower case c in this matter, but it usually causes more need for explanation than it solves.
Webster's Collegiate Dictionary of the English Language, New World, abridged (1917) -- Christian: 2. Generally, one born in a Christian country or of Christian parents, and who has not definitely become an adherent of an opposing religion. This is closer to the mark of the concept which has been purged from our vocabulary. The narrow ecclesiastical definition prevalent in the late 20th Century (to the exclusion of the generic) (and misused historically by dialectics to redefine the debate) is why I deny the assertion made by revisionists that the Founders were not Christian in their general meaning and usage of the term, as they certainly thought that they were.
Thus by the general definition of the term used by them (and as mentioned, still used by mainline and non-denominational Christians today (sans some types of non-credo-baptists) -- but it seems never by dialectic determinists) precious few Founders and I would assert none among our Framers repudiated Christ or were anti-Christian in the manner expounded by those holding to contrary assumptions. By repudiate I mean to reject or condemn as having no authority or binding force or adhere to another religion which does so.
Regarding the general term of christian, the great preponderance of our founders were raised by Christian parents or themselves attended a church, were church members, and were received into the communion of the saints according to their personal beliefs, even the Framer, Benjamin Franklin. Franklins behaviour is crucially different from Deism as defined in the next century by Paley, and it has been pointed out that American Revolutionary Deism until the rise of Unitarianism, was not seen as a sufficient repudiation of the tenets of Christ, but compatible with them. If Franklin was a European Deist, he was a poor one for he believed in interactive Divine Providence, was a dues paying church member who received communion, and believed in praying to the Almighty for direct guidance -- something a European Deist of the time would not do. Most combatants in the Revolutionary War (to the point of 97% claimed a form of Christianity as their religion.) This is statistically significant in indicating the general (generic) definition, not the narrow ecclesiastical meaning.
To conclude, a small number of our Founders, and none of the Framers recanted Christ or denied his virtue(ousness). They may have dissented over what that meant, but so do all Christian everywhere dissent views held by other fellow Christians (we're mere human beings after all). But the same is true of anything concerning a large enough group of people. Nonetheless they and their writings were and are amenable to and within the pale of Christianity, being philosophically consistent with an Evangelical/Counter-Reformation (Mainline) Christian Worldview in their understanding of Liberty and human dignity shared to a large degree by Objectivists (elliptically) and Evangelical Objective Realists (directly) alike.
The Specifics (not dealt with in the Big Picture)
Jefferson was never denied communion nor fellowship of the saints when seeking it. Jefferson was scathingly hostile to religious pretentiousness, priestcraft, despoilers of doctrine and tyrants both within Christendom and without. As he should. He suffered mental torment over the nature of Jesus Christ. This is understandable. If Christ not be God, to claim so is is unforgivable blasphemy. If Christ is God, then the Episcopal clergy of Virginia had profaned the name of Christ by their abuse to the point of incredulity. This is inexcusable. Any thinking (thoughtful) person, Christian or otherwise will utterly despise abuses of religion and will have grave concerns about the future Christianity in any generation (as do I, so did Luther, Calvin, Edwards, Adams, et al.) as each generation should. Having misgivings about general Christianity, and concerns about our inept and inconsistent life as a Christians, personally, ecclesiastically, and societally is a part and parcel of being Christian. Moreover, in Thomas Jefferson's 09 Jan 1819 letter to Charles Thomson, he wrote "... I am a real Christian; that is to say a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus." This is good enough in the general sense of the term. Christians can debate amongst ourselves in house as to what this means savlifically for him, but that is a different discussion.
Regarding Washington, as someone raised with one foot in the Society of Friends this is somewhat humorous. There are only two wars since George Fox wherein Quakers (ardent pacifists) joined en masse. The Revolutionary War almost to a man, and WW2 is a distant second. The Christian witness of George Washington despite being an Anglican of all things, (some food for thought) was that influential. His devotion and piety to Christ won them over to the righteous/just cause of the Revolutionary War as Christians, and support of him that lasted through his presidency and to the end of his life. If George Washington were merely posturing, it would have soured the Friends (who historically are scrupulous in deciphering the human condition) even more to the Revolution and the Founding. Jefferson would have called him out for his hypocrisy had he merely been a poser (as Jefferson liked to do). As for one overseas missive by attaches that is a translation of a translation copied back into the English, it is unpersuasive given the context of the situation when compared to the whole of the life of this man (nor the fact that a federal union of States many having their own established church would not be easy to translate succinctly to Islamic sensibilities. (Iirc this was under Adams presidency). The Friends published a book from their perspective on the life of George Washington (an exemplar of what it means to be a man, a statesman, and a Christian) that has many of his prayers therein. If God grants me the grace to attain even a fraction of the level of humility and repentance in prayer of his bared soul to write in my prayer journal, I will die content. Even as post-modern revisionists attempt to deconstruct the Father of this country into a prototypical Marxist villain for unthinking proletariat consumption, it might be worth considering why the Quakers consider George Washington (a man with blood on his hands) a blessed soul convinced of the inner light (despite being a soldier and Anglican).
Agreement!
Yes, not everyone was a Christian, in either the narrow or general sense.
Yes, Thomas Paine and his cohorts' unabashed hatred of Christianity was stark. He did much damage to the name of Christ during his provocative years which he could not undo. This did not stop Paine's pre-French works from being recommended from the pulpits, discussed among the Church elders, read by the laity and sparking congregants to action, even as many considered him a scoundrel. As with anything, mature productive adults readily engage others respectfully in social intercourse, and upon examination of argument chew the meat and spit out the bones. Paine later in life himself repudiated many of his works including "the Age of Enlightenment." I am a skeptic of late-in-life conversions (even more so of deathbed conversions). Yet, God is gracious, and our hope as Christians (as for any individual) is God's salvation for him to be effectual. "Age of Enlightenment" is still a good read and an excellent snippet to help understand why the French Revolution went so wrong.
Gratis
If you made it all the way through, thank you for reading. If you understand more fully the nature of why we disagree this is time well spent. I will be diligent, no matter how long it takes respond to anything you post in response.
Other Definitions
By Founding fathers I mean the Federalists, Anti-Federalists and Statesman of their respective Colonies/States, Universities, individuals and their communities who held together, and contributed to the American Experiment from the Seven Years War (French and Indian War) to the end of the hostilities of the war of 1812 (Treaty of Ghent/Battle of New Orleans) in all levels and branches of governance, and to 1815 regarding the Framers specifically.
By Framers I mean the ones directly responsible for the creation of the Federal state in all branches from the Seven Years War to the creation of the Declaration, Articles, Constitution, Ordinance, Bill of Rights, and through 1815 regarding matters in constitution, establishing the Federal Judiciary and foreign affairs of State.
Happy belated Columbus Day
Narland, Auxorii
Its interesting that the tribes who were under Aztec rule would much rather have had the Spanish rule them.
Columbus was an idiot who shouldnt be celebrated.
The dude would have died he not gotten lucky.
He didnt get lucky, he discovered the American continent and connected the Old World & the New World together by using the best scientific advice of the time, basing his calculations on Toscanelli.
I wouldve expected better from you than to fall for such cultural marxist talking points.
christopher is back and he's pissed off pher
His calculations were so good, they were better than the mathematicians, who had basically known exactly how big the earth was for centuries...
Lol. Im not one to revere people who just sucked.
My plan is to respond to Narland in the future. Rather busy.
The salt from the aftermath of the Texas vax mandate ban has been hilarious. There are people unironically whining about government tyranny...because the government won't allow businesses to force people to get vaxed. God sends his funniest battles to his silliest clowns
Miencraft
I did have a 5 paragraph reply that included mentioning bear lake and that a wall would spoil the view. But weeded the response down. Thankfully the massacres between lds and "gentiles" faded down. Today Idaho has more Mormons per capita (who today in general are outstanding residents and citizens -- sans particular individuals who hold to church mercantilism). Today we have more LDS per capita than Utah but less than Hawai'i. Both sides of my family have a line or two of old settlers (Oregon Territory or before), who were pro-Union, and vehement against any group that raised arms against the US, including Confederate Democrats, and Mormons. One belonged to a Vigilance Committee whose job was specifically to hunt down identified Avenging Angels. Two of my aunts on one side of the family married into Mormonism (one's husband was a Salt Lake Temple faithful, the other a La'ie Temple faithful -- i still do not understand what the infighting is a about). The hostilities are long over. I think it best that the mixed war between your ancestors and mine be left in their graves only to be read about in the history books.
The Pioneers who settled here taught their kids (and hence us) to be proud of our Yankee, and Midland Traditions of freedom, self-reliance, and a healthy distrust for anyone whose lips are moving. Our Southern heritage not so much because of the Democrats trying to secede from the Union so they could keep their slaves. Southern Abolitionists were lauded in the history books, however.
Idaho was founded (technically) as an anti-state (3 distinct regions that did not want to be absorbed as a region into its neighboring State), and who disliked each other less than the neighboring States. Unfortunately we lost half the northern region (the Bitterroots) because of a drunken lunkhead. The history of where to put our capitol is the stuff of legends.
***note: by yankee, I mean the (neutral) textbook usage that divides the Eastern cultural hearths into Yankee, Midlands, and Southern regions for brevity. I sometimes forget that many people (especially Southerners) use it as a derogatory.
Honk!
Miri Islands
Thanks. It is appreciated. I hope your busy is the good kind. Over here it is rather mixed.
I get your perspective,
My basic point is the LDS are not a "cross over" into Idaho, they have been there about as long as anybody else. Nor are many of them "cross overs" to pre-democrat yankee heritage.
"I think it best that the mixed war between your ancestors and mine be left in their graves only to be read about in the history books."
I agree with this, which is why I object to your characterization of Latter-Day Saints as being a "cross over" in Idaho. Cross-over, I think, a level of foreignness or that Latter-Day Saints are not "real Idahoans." As has been established, Latter-Day Saints have deep roots in Idaho reaching just about as far back as any non-Indian population in Idaho, on top of this a plurality ( I don't think it is an outright majority) of Idaho is Latter-Day Saint. To preclude such a large portion of Idahoans from being 'real Idahoans' seems illogical to me. And I didn't expect that from you.
IC. I tend to expound and go off on rabbit trails when I should stay on focus. Specifically by crossovers in state politics it is mean certain groups (in the past and today) who view (or try to make) Idaho an extention of Utah (particularly Salt Lake commercial interests). In Particular the old Smiley political machine, and the current Romney machine (whose version of Conservatism is incompatible with traditional radical republicanism (small r). Idaho's Republicans used to be much more Libertarian in its desire to keep the State laws to a minimum, and let local communities decide the nature of their ordinances. Some places were straight laced and were closed on Sundays, and other communities had prostitution and gambling. Those political machines put an end to local autonomy. The Romney politicians seek to subvert our economics into their commercial interests.
So apparently I ceased to exist and I got moved to Balder? Also my flag got changed, gotta find that file again I guess. Hey guys
Miencraft, Narland, Auxorii, Rateria, The United States Of Patriots, Miri Islands
I think I understand what you are saying now. I would just add that Romney is hardly a representation of Utah's, let alone Latter-Day Saint, political leanings. Romney is more popular with the Utah Democratic party than the state GOP. He technically lost the primary to Kennedy and that was even including the many Utah democrats who are registered as republicans in order to sway our primaries. According to a poll from august the majority of Utah GOP have a dis-favorable view of Romney. While the majority favor Lee, who I am very proud to be represented by. If the cross-over is in reference to the influence of the Romney machine, Utah itself is dealing that that same cross-over. And I wish luck to anyone trying to combat it. I remain optimistic that come 2024 Romney will be out of a job, literally every Utah republican I know want him out. Within the Romney machine I have noticed a trend away from libertarian-ness, he after all was the inventor of many key aspects of the ACA. But among the general public of Utah, and majority Latter-Day Saint population, I have noticed a general trend towards libertarianism. The only issues I can think of that are particularly not trending towards libertarianism are views on the legality of pornography and enforcement of a more strict border policy. Additionally this population remains strongly opposed to abortion which some would argue is anti-liberty, but I would argue is pro-liberty as it protects the child's rights.
Anyways, long story short, don't judge us by the quality of our political leadership. Leadership is almost always lacking. But... if you do have to judge us by our political leadership, judge us according to Mike Lee, not Mitt Romney ;)
The Baldr legend is awesome.
Is that just a thing that happens when you cease to exist? It's my first time.
Who are these mathematicians? Columbus was using Ptolemys calculations; and though you could argue others got closer than Ptolemy, the exact size of Earth was still debated up through the renaissance.
Yes.
What hasnt Biden messed up?
Post self-deleted by Narland.
For anyone who loves Liberty, there is nothing he hasn't messed up.
He did a great job of giving away the Panama Canal to a dictatorial madman.
He helped get Carter's economic policies passed.
He helped downsize the country.
His group blew the whistle on their fellow Congressmen who without the State Department had just negotiated the release of the embassy hostages in Iran after four weeks, causing it to be cancelled just so Carter wouldn't look bad. Wasn't that so thoughtful of him? Never mind they ended up held hostage for another 58 or so weeks.
And that is just 4 things off the top of my head from the 70s.
I swear, most Americans are perpetual amnesiacs to have elected him.
Yes. Keep your flag files handy and remember what region you are in. Narland flag is blurry for that very reason. It seems that the Factbook entries stay. I am not sure about telegrams.
He hasn't declared himself president for life so that's a good start; I'd hate to have to deal with him for 2 more years
Narland, Skaveria
If anything the Biden presidency is a testament to Kamala Harris' excellent restraint. She joined his ticket knowing she was basically running with a dead person, so as he continues to live the urge to just put a pillow over his face and get it over with must be excruciating.
Narland
Kamala would be worse
Narland
QUALITY
Unless we have the courage to fight for a revival of wholesome reserve between man and man, we shall perish in an anarchy of human values. The impudent contempt for such reserve is the mark of the rabble, just as inward uncertainty, haggling and cringing for the favour of insolent people, and lowering oneself to the level of the rabble are the way of becoming no better than the rabble oneself. When we forget what is due to ourselves and to others, when the feeling for human quality and the power to exercise reserve cease to exist, chaos is at the door. When we tolerate impudence for the sake of material comforts, then we abandon our self-respect, the flood-gates are opened, chaos bursts the dam that we were to defend; and we are responsible for it all. In other times it may have been the business of Christianity to champion the equality of all men; its business today will be to defend passionately human dignity and reserve. The misinterpretation that we are acting for our own interests, and the cheap insinuation that our attitude is anti-social, we shall simply have to put up with; they are the invariable protests of the rabble against decency and order. Anyone who is pliant and uncertain in this matter does not realize what is at stake, and indeed in his case the reproaches may well be justified. We are witnessing the levelling down of all ranks of society, and at the same time the birth of a new sense of nobility, which is binding together a circle of men from all former social classes. Nobility arises from and exists by sacrifice, courage, and a clear sense of duty to oneself and society, by expecting due regard for itself as a matter of course; and it shows an equally natural regard for others, whether they are of higher or of lower degree. We need all along the line to recover the lost sense of quality and a social order based on quality. Quality is the greatest enemy of any kind of mass-levelling. Socially it means the renunciation of all place-hunting, a break with the cult of the star, an open eye both upwards and downwards, especially in the choice of ones more intimate friends, and pleasure in private life as well as courage to enter public life. Culturally it means a return from the newspaper and the radio to the book, from feverish activity to unhurried leisure, from dispersion to concentration, from sensationalism to reflection, from virtuosity to art, from snobbery to modesty, from extravagance to moderation. Quantities are competitive, qualities are complementary.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Narland
I have never heard about the hostage thing but yikes
Colin Powell passed away. While I disagreed with his policies I will not celebrate his death like ghoulish leftists do
Miencraft, Narland, Auxorii
Didnt we celebrate a death not too long ago?
I agree. Merrily dancing on the corpse of the deceased (just because of political disagreement) is reprehensible.
I respected Colin Powell because of his personal character (truth, honor, respect for others, and fidelity). I served in a different branch, but it seemed that many of the right people in my branch respected him, and a handful of the more untrustworthy disdained him -- that is always a good sign.
I disliked the Establishmentarian bent of his politics and his proclivity for European aristocratic society (the EU ruling elite), but his love for American Ideals despite this, his professionalism as a soldier, and his respect for the Constitution (to the best of his understanding) earned my respect as well. While I wouldn't vote for him if running for civilian office, I would gladly share a foxhole with him, and follow his lawful orders as a superior into battle (although I would have much rather shared an afternoon bbq, a pint of Dr. Pepper, and evening of good conversation with him).
RIP Colin Powell - Decorated American Soldier, Officer, Gentleman, Diplomat, Scholar, and 2x Presidential Medal of Freedom recipient (among too many honors to mention here).
Miencraft, The United States Of Patriots, Skaveria
Moving tribute
Maybe not the best idea to write about lowering expectations for the normal people while living the cushy life of a so-called journalist Wapo writer
Miencraft, Narland, Auxorii, The United States Of Patriots
Kamala would be the type to yell surpirse at her own party
Miencraft, Narland, Miri Islands
Fake people living fake lives in order to role-play a reality of that of which they seemingly have little understanding and perform unconvincingly so, even to those who play along to feed the insatiable cravings for arbitrary power. CS Lewis spoke of hollow men with hollow chests such that it made their (barely average) heads looks large in comparison. What we have now are hollow men (and women) with hollow chests and empty heads, treating everyone and everything as diminished in their capacity (even moreso) as they.
Miri Islands
gaybraham lincoln
Post by Terra Bestiarum suppressed by Auxorii.
Come join my libertarian region, Beastland.
no
Auxorii, Rateria, The United States Of Patriots, Highway Eighty-Eight, Miri Islands
Why would anyone join your tiny new region that has nothing to offer, over our region, the premier libertarian region on NS? Why would they even consider your region when you think its fine to advertise your crap on our RMB?
Auxorii
Why would you found a new region, like someone looking for their own petty kingdom, instead of join NSs largest (and, honestly, only) truly libertarian region.
(Seriously guys, click on the libertarian tag, and sort the list of regions by number of nations, and youll realize that were the only libertarian region left on NS)
Miencraft, Auxorii
time for the second worst event
Miencraft
If only Max Barry could come up with an event that isn't just constantly a reskin of itself.
Auxorii
If I were Max Barry, Id be a depressed divorced virgin because my books suck, my game sucks, the admins and mods of my game suck, my head would be bald and Id look like a dildo.
Miencraft, Auxorii, Skaveria
the cards were cool, for like a week
At least you can opt out of the other one
At least there is no Zombie Participation Mandate.
Wow, 28 nations. I mean 29, sorry.
Post self-deleted by Terra Bestiarum.
Several of us have been here for many years. Surely you must understand why we wouldn't want to leave this region for a new one with only one member? That said, you're welcome here NationStates always needs more libertarians.
https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=879896
Narland, Auxorii
even if some of us responded rather bluntly to your invitation
Narland, Auxorii
Love this region. I came after the IRU collapsed
Narland
We really need to get back to writing up this factbook.
Narland, Suzi Island, Rateria
Agreed.
Narland, Rateria
Congrats to Auxorii on being the latest Tatemite to be rid of zombies, albeit with a severely compromised immune system (27.9 Million [0.18%] survival). This current rate seems to be the result of Auxoriis decision to exterminate infected people early on, leading to a large number of dead which seem to have reanimated a second time and overwhelmed the uninfected, and then dying en-made.
Narland, Auxorii
I joined a rebel region after Pacifica kicked me out for criticizing the oppression of free speech. After the region got banned and I managed to subvert and cause In fighting till Pacifica collapsed. After that I floated a bit I found this place and stayed ever since
Narland
Second that
Narland
Its okay - purge successful.
Narland
SNEK
no step
I missed Z-day. I could make up for it by watching CNN news anchors. They are sort of like zombies.
Every time their mouths move strange sounds come out that don't have much cogency. But instead of eating brains the old fashioned way they slowly drain the IQ and sanity of viewers through the "magic of television."
I am impressed that a truck driver who spent only $153 on his bid for NJ Governor against a corrupt political machine has done so well. Considering how outraged NJ residents are, three more dollars might have put him over the top.
Miencraft, Republic Of Minerva, Kumquat Cove, Rateria, Miri Islands
That guy was running for State senate and beat the state senate President. unfortunately it looks like Murphy will win re-election (barring a recount as it is close)
Miencraft, Narland, Republic Of Minerva, Kumquat Cove, Rateria
And half of that money was for Dunkin Donuts.
Narland
Wawa
Dear Guyanea,
Ive unilaterally decided that your region sucks and were going to own it in the future.
Sincerely,
A Tatemite
Auxorii, New Tampa
[quote=highway_eighty-eight;45650464]Dear Guyanea,
Ive unilaterally decided that your region sucks and were going to own it in the future.
Why would we own something that sucks
[quote=suzi_island;45671747][quote=highway_eighty-eight;45650464]Dear Guyanea,
Ive unilaterally decided that your region sucks and were going to own it in the future.
Why would we own something that sucks[/quote]
The US is cool, and yet owns California. This is just to dab on Mexico.
Auxorii, Suzi Island, Rateria, The United States Of Patriots
Why are we refusing to construct embassies with them again?
Because they suck
Highway Eighty-Eight
Assembled with Dot's Region Saver.
Written by Refuge Isle.