Post Archive

Region: Libertatem

History

Trump is a RINO tho. Former Democrat.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:Former Democrat.

See also: Ronald Reagan.

Pevvania, San Carlos Islands

Miencraft wrote:See also: Ronald Reagan.

See also. Mike Pence.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:Trump is a RINO tho. Former Democrat.

I agree that he's a RINO. Mainly because he isn't a Corporatist shill and a Neocon like most of the Republican party.

Miencraft, Pevvania, Jadentopian Order

Republic Of Minerva wrote:Trump is a RINO tho. Former Democrat.

Technically he is Reform Party. His book "The America We Deserve" pretty much sums up his political stance. The policy papers he helped devise when the Reform Party was viable are sadly no longer accessible. Basically he is 1/2 Democrat and 1/2 GOP and 60% anti-establishment. The parts that are anti-establishment is what infuriates Dems and provokes GOP Never-Trumpers and resonates with Middle-Americans.

The hope (of Ross Perot) was to disestablish both the Democrat Welfare Complex Machine and the GOP Corporatist Machine and replace more populistic amenable cronies that wanted a minimalist welfare net, remove reliance on petro-dollars -- the one which would have gutted the Democratic power base and the latter the GOP power base. Trump's agenda remains the same and his only real change has been from pro-choice to pro-life.

The part of Trump that I agree with is dismantling those parts of Washington he wishes to abolish and significantly reform; and returning the nation back to the entrepreneurs. The rest (medicare for all, federally funded workfare, etc.) I will oppose as he is closer to an old style New England small (small as in lean implying efficient not small as in unobtrusive) government Democrat than an actual Classical Liberal. But as long as he is ridding Washington of the over-regulation and poor fiscal policies that deprive and infringe upon the right to pursuit of happiness (controlling and owning ones own productivity and the means whereby) and acting like a bull in the statist Beltway China shop, I am content.

Pevvania

Speaking of RINOs, I love how Romney lectured Trump on his being "divisive, racist, sexist, anti-immigrant". For anyone that remembers the 2012 election, the MSM was running a campaign to malign Romney as all of those things and more. Who remembers "he'll put y'all back in chains?" "Binders full of women?" Every other article was about how terrible of a person Romney was. Now he's weakly trying to curry favor from the same people that literally equivocated him with the KKK. Sad!

Miencraft, Narland

Pevvania wrote:[spoiler=SNIP]Speaking of RINOs, I love how Romney lectured Trump on his being "divisive, racist, sexist, anti-immigrant". For anyone that remembers the 2012 election, the MSM was running a campaign to malign Romney as all of those things and more. Who remembers "he'll put y'all back in chains?" "Binders full of women?" Every other article was about how terrible of a person Romney was. Now he's weakly trying to curry favor from the same people that literally equivocated him with the KKK. Sad![/spoiler]

It is sad. People like Mitt Romney and Jeff Flake just come off as judgemental blowhards, always pontificating on how "immoral" the President is. Maybe they'd be more likable if they just talked about the issues instead of condescendingly lecturing us about how Trump is demeaning the Presidency?

Well, at least Utah still has Mike Lee.

Pevvania, Narland, The United States Of Patriots

While we are on the topic of Tump, I have a question. What are your thoughts on the bump stock ban?

The New United States

The New United States wrote:It is sad. People like Mitt Romney and Jeff Flake just come off as judgemental blowhards, always pontificating on how "immoral" the President is. Maybe they'd be more likable if they just talked about the issues instead of condescendingly lecturing us about how Trump is demeaning the Presidency?

Well, at least Utah still has Mike Lee.

Yep, just phony publicity-whores. Look, I totally support having Senators check the power of the president, and as much as I support Trump we don't need anyone blindly following his lead. But there's a way to do this without undermining the president and the party. Rand Paul and Mike Lee, among others, have set good examples for how to be independent and oppose Trump where he's wrong (i.e. Yemen) without having to constantly attack him.

The New United States, Rateria, The United States Of Patriots

Rateria wrote:While we are on the topic of Tump, I have a question. What are your thoughts on the bump stock ban?

retarded

Miencraft, Pevvania, Rateria, The United States Of Patriots

Rateria wrote:While we are on the topic of Tump, I have a question. What are your thoughts on the bump stock ban?

Dump anti-bump Tump because he's a pain in my rump.

#AlFranken2020

The New United States, Rateria, San Carlos Islands

Rateria wrote:While we are on the topic of Tump, I have a question. What are your thoughts on the bump stock ban?

It's so dumb I'm going to say the hecking N word.

Ni.

Pevvania, The New United States, Rateria, The United States Of Patriots, Highway Eight

Rateria wrote:While we are on the topic of Tump, I have a question. What are your thoughts on the bump stock ban?

Not good. Functionally, I don't think it will make much of a difference; most gun owners I've talked to think bump stocks are kind of pointless anyway. My main problem with it is that it concedes to the gun control crowd that we need to curtail the 2nd Amendment in order to reduce violence, a fatal conceit that's fundamentally wrong. When you give an inch, they take a mile, as they have in many states that have sadly enacted new gun control laws in response to recent mass shootings.

Miencraft, Narland, The New United States, Rateria, The United States Of Patriots

Highway Eight wrote:Dump anti-bump Tump because he's a pain in my rump.

#AlFranken2020

You forgot Anthony Wiener as his running mate.

Pevvania, The New United States, Rateria

Pevvania wrote:Not good. Functionally, I don't think it will make much of a difference; most gun owners I've talked to think bump stocks are kind of pointless anyway. My main problem with it is that it concedes to the gun control crowd that we need to curtail the 2nd Amendment in order to reduce violence, a fatal conceit that's fundamentally wrong. When you give an inch, they take a mile, as they have in many states that have sadly enacted new gun control laws in response to recent mass shootings.

I agree. I know that you agree with Trump on a few things and wanted to hear your thoughts on this. I’m glad you’re not on board with the “4D Chess” crowd. My thoughts are that it will do nothing to stop mass shootings, and that it will set a precedent that the President can redefine items however he or she pleases. I’ve done a decent amount research on this and know a thing or two about it. Let’s just say that I hope the ban is struck down in court.

Speaking of “4D Chess,” I’m extremely skeptical that Trump will get rid of any gun laws during his presidency. There’s been talk of deregulating suppressors and nationwide concealed carry reciprocity, but I’m sure that it won’t happen under Trump and with gun controllers in office on both sides of the aisle.

Pevvania, Narland, The New United States

A while back I was in a gun control debate and my opponent asked me why a person couldn't own a nuclear weapon. Now, I considered it a win seeing as though they had to take it to nukes to prove their point, but my only response was that an individual doesn't have the capacity to store a nuke. That doesn't answer the question though. If I'm going off of my presupposition that the people have a right to be as armed as their government, and an individual or private organization had the means to own a nuke, why couldn't they in a Libertarian society? The only solution I've seen is a rather extreme one. People should be allowed to own nukes

The States Of Balloon

Rateria wrote:I agree. I know that you agree with Trump on a few things and wanted to hear your thoughts on this. I’m glad you’re not on board with the “4D Chess” crowd. My thoughts are that it will do nothing to stop mass shootings, and that it will set a precedent that the President can redefine items however he or she pleases. I’ve done a decent amount research on this and know a thing or two about it. Let’s just say that I hope the ban is struck down in court.

Speaking of “4D Chess,” I’m extremely skeptical that Trump will get rid of any gun laws during his presidency. There’s been talk of deregulating suppressors and nationwide concealed carry reciprocity, but I’m sure that it won’t happen under Trump and with gun controllers in office on both sides of the aisle.

I think it's just politics really. Trump and Republicans didn't want to be seen as doing nothing over the issue, and perhaps they thought some minor controls could placate the anti-2A crowd (it remains to be seen whether that will happen or not). Yeah, there were some House bills in 2017 that a lot of conservatives were excited about and Paul Ryan wanted to push, but they got shelved after the Las Vegas massacre.

The problem is that this is an issue where consensus is almost impossible, so getting any meaningful legislation, whether it's pro- or anti-gun rights, through Congress is like getting a camel through the eye of a needle. Even with a 60-vote Senate majority I'm skeptical that either party would be able to pass anything. The most we can ask of the Trump administration is to vigorously defend the Second Amendment in court and file good briefs in support of it, and to deregulate firearms where it can by executive order.

Miencraft, The New United States, Rateria

Skaveria wrote:A while back I was in a gun control debate and my opponent asked me why a person couldn't own a nuclear weapon. Now, I considered it a win seeing as though they had to take it to nukes to prove their point, but my only response was that an individual doesn't have the capacity to store a nuke. That doesn't answer the question though. If I'm going off of my presupposition that the people have a right to be as armed as their government, and an individual or private organization had the means to own a nuke, why couldn't they in a Libertarian society? The only solution I've seen is a rather extreme one. People should be allowed to own nukes

I think this argument is a logical fallacy. The NAP guarantees the individual right to self-defense, as does the 2nd Amendment, but nuclear arms cannot possibly be used for that purpose, so they are inconsistent with any theory of individual rights. Small arms and many other types of weapons should be able to be possessed by citizens under the right to self-defense because they can be used discriminately. If I am being attacked and I have a firearm, there's a high chance in most situations I can use that weapon to shoot my attacker without injuring or killing innocent bystanders or damaging their property. This includes machine guns, tanks and most weapons I can think of. Nuclear weapons cannot be used without the death of thousands or millions of people at a time, so cannot be used for legitimate self-defense; they are an act of aggression and a violation of the NAP simply by existing. The only ethical argument for nuclear weapons is for collective self-defense against other countries.

So yeah, next time someone brings that up, you can file it under the 'false equivalency' pile.

The New United States

Pevvania wrote:I think it's just politics really. Trump and Republicans didn't want to be seen as doing nothing over the issue, and perhaps they thought some minor controls could placate the anti-2A crowd (it remains to be seen whether that will happen or not). Yeah, there were some House bills in 2017 that a lot of conservatives were excited about and Paul Ryan wanted to push, but they got shelved after the Las Vegas massacre.

The problem is that this is an issue where consensus is almost impossible, so getting any meaningful legislation, whether it's pro- or anti-gun rights, through Congress is like getting a camel through the eye of a needle. Even with a 60-vote Senate majority I'm skeptical that either party would be able to pass anything. The most we can ask of the Trump administration is to vigorously defend the Second Amendment in court and file good briefs in support of it, and to deregulate firearms where it can by executive order.

I see what you’re saying. I agree that some Republicans are probably trying to win support from the other side or simply appear as caring people. I will state however that I still don’t think that Trump is a hard-line 2nd Amendment purist or anything close. About pacifying gun controllers, I’m convinced that it will not be enough for them. I’m sure we’re both aware of the history surrounding “compromises” like these.

I will somewhat disagree with you on the difficulty of passing gun legislation. I agree that there is immense difficulty when it comes to federally expanding gun rights, but I’m pretty sure that passing gun control is much easier. Under Republican administrations both state and federal, gun control laws passed. Federal examples include the Hughes Amendment of the FOPA and the senior Bush’s import ban, but that one is an executive order, I think. The most pertinent example of this to me is the gun control package passed in my state of Florida, and there was a significant Republican backing for it. Massachusetts also has some of the nation’s strictest gun laws, even under a Republican governor. Even in Republican-dominated governments, the 2nd Amendment is far from completely safe.

In my opinion, the best option we have so far might be relying on gun rights groups to litigate for our rights. Fighting on the state level is also a good idea, but that might not stop federal infringements. As for the bump stock ban itself, gun control supporters don’t seem to pay much attention to it, although Dianne Fienstein did mention it, so it’s not completely ignored. It also gets overwhelming attention from gun owners and gun rights supporters, so I think that this ban will harm Trump’s popularity, as opposed to boost it like he may have intended.

Pevvania, The New United States

Pevvania wrote:I think this argument is a logical fallacy. The NAP guarantees the individual right to self-defense, as does the 2nd Amendment, but nuclear arms cannot possibly be used for that purpose, so they are inconsistent with any theory of individual rights. Small arms and many other types of weapons should be able to be possessed by citizens under the right to self-defense because they can be used discriminately. If I am being attacked and I have a firearm, there's a high chance in most situations I can use that weapon to shoot my attacker without injuring or killing innocent bystanders or damaging their property. This includes machine guns, tanks and most weapons I can think of. Nuclear weapons cannot be used without the death of thousands or millions of people at a time, so cannot be used for legitimate self-defense; they are an act of aggression and a violation of the NAP simply by existing. The only ethical argument for nuclear weapons is for collective self-defense against other countries.

So yeah, next time someone brings that up, you can file it under the 'false equivalency' pile.

Yeah, but simply owning a nuke doesn't violate the NAP, therefore any regulation on owning one would.

Rateria wrote:While we are on the topic of Tump, I have a question. What are your thoughts on the bump stock ban?

NO INFRINGE

Pevvania, The New United States, Rateria

McNukes

The New United States, Rateria, The United States Of Patriots, Jadentopian Order

Rateria wrote:While we are on the topic of Tump, I have a question. What are your thoughts on the bump stock ban?
It is political virtue signalling. The only real purpose i can think of to use one is for suppressive fire when the shtf (like the 60s Watts Riots and what is happening in Venezuela now because of Socialism). By that time cops and troops are going to be more interested in stopping the domestic violence of the mobs and rioters than my family lawfully protecting its property. With a little know-how and bailing wire nearly any rifle can be "bumped" if needed. The virtue signalling does set a bad precedent in that any non-trigger accessory can be regulated out of existence.

Pevvania, The New United States, Rateria

Skaveria wrote:Yeah, but simply owning a nuke doesn't violate the NAP, therefore any regulation on owning one would.

You make a good case for why the NAP shouldn't be the end-all be-all of the law.

Pevvania, Rateria

Skaveria wrote:Yeah, but simply owning a nuke doesn't violate the NAP, therefore any regulation on owning one would.

No, but owning a nuke within proximity to any person within its blast radius might be. Imagine it as you are pointing a gun to every person within its vicinity.

Pevvania, The New United States, Rateria

Skaveria wrote:Yeah, but simply owning a nuke doesn't violate the NAP, therefore any regulation on owning one would.

I'd argue it is. I'm not arguing against nuclear weapons, or in favor of the NAP for that matter, but as [nation=short]Republic of Minerva[/nation] alluded to, how is owning a nuclear weapon any different from pointing a gun at everyone's heads? Perhaps you could make the case for experimental testing or whatever, but I don't see any reason for nuclear weapons in a libertarian society other than mass extermination.

The New United States, Rateria

The New United States wrote:You make a good case for why the NAP shouldn't be the end-all be-all of the law.

I think the NAP is a great theory and should be used as a societal guideline - i.e. don't harm others unless in self-defense - but taking it to the extreme would be a terrible idea. Murray Rothbard wrote that police officers torturing suspects is OK if the suspect has committed a more severe crime, and that parents have the "fundamental right" to abandon their newborn children and let them die.

Let's not do that please.

Miencraft, The New United States, Rateria, The United States Of Patriots

I'd like to call a Constitutional convention. Here's what I've come up with so far:

The Constitution (First Draft)

Section I

You can do whatever you want.

Section II

You can't make someone else do something they don't want to do.

Miencraft, Rateria, Jadentopian Order

West Smolcasm wrote:I'd like to call a Constitutional convention. Here's what I've come up with so far:

The Constitution (First Draft)

Section I

You can do whatever you want.

Section II

You can't make someone else do something they don't want to do.

Section III

Weed.

Rateria

Jadentopian Order wrote:Section III

Weed.

That gives me an even better idea.

The Constitution (Second Draft)

Section I

Smoke weed every day.

Section II

Don't not smoke weed any day.

Miencraft, Rateria, Jadentopian Order

The Constitution (First Draft)

Section I

E

Miencraft, Rateria, Jadentopian Order

what about something like this?

Draft as in First Draft, not as in Draft Beer:

The Constitution

ARTICLE I

Section 1: The elimination of fraud and coercion being necessary to the cultivation of Liberty as the cornerstone of a Civilization of Free People: Do what thou wilt as long as no harm is caused to another's life, limb and property; commonly called the Non Aggression Principle shall be this Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Region.

Section 2: Any and all Regional Government shall swear allegiance and fealty to the Non-Aggression Principle.

Section 3: Any Government formed shall be done by the Citizens of this region to govern themselves as they see fit so long as this Constitution and the Non Aggression Principle is adhered within this Region.

ARTICLE II

Section 1: The only Common Good of Government being delegated from the People from whom all political power inalieanably resides, the elimination of fraud and coercion shall never be construed to deprive any natural individual of life, liberty, person and property; nor shall any means of Due Process be infringed; nor shall any natural person be defamed for defending his life, liberty, person and property by any and all Lawful means that natural person shall deem necessary as an otherwise lawful natural individual.

Section 2: There shall be no Law compelling any natural person to do against their conscience whether by fraud or coercion nor infringe of the right to be let be to one's own ways and means, and to be left alone to one's Lawful and Peaceable devices.

ARTICLE III

Section 1: The Creator(s) of this Region reserves the right to alter or abolish this Constitution as deemed necessary to further stablish the Non-Aggression Principle for the interests of this Region as a Libertarian based Region.

Section 2: The Citizens of this Region may alter or abolish this Constitution by Lawful Means as determined by the Statures formed by their delegates selected by the People and approved by the Creator(s) of this Region.

Rateria, Jadentopian Order

I wanted to add an extra part:

[box]ARTICLE IV

The writings of the Venerable Sage Lysander Spooner shall be inscribed upon all revenue stamps for Hemp and related products, the proceeds thereof to be sent to Narland's personal bank account.[/box] :D

but it didn't seem to be of the same spirit as the rest of the document.

Rateria

Making any principle - however noble - a law unto itself is an invitation for corruption and tyranny.

The purpose of a constitution is to codify the establishment of a political organization that has the following:

- Administration of a defined territory with a permanent population (in our case, the region of Libertatem and its residents)

- The capacity to govern said territory and population in exchange for the protection of their liberty and security from foreign threats, namely agents that purport themselves to be "states"

- The capacity to reliably enter into relations with said "states"

The libertarian ethic in any scenario that would usher in any such codification - such as, for instance, our dissatisfaction with our region lacking the latter two of the above qualities - would be not to impose upon the populace the primacy of any one ideal, but simply to permit this newly established political organization as little power as is needed to do its job while clarifying the benefits of its adoption (namely outlining the rights to which our populace is entitled by, or despite, consenting to being governed).

For the purposes of drafting another Libertatem constitution, we would do well to look to the concepts outlined in the first constitution, as I feel they adhere to this ethic well. To summarize these concepts:

- An upper legislative body, The Board, appointed by The Founder and endowed with the authority to construct embassies, declare war/peace, and check the power of The WA Delegate. The Founder additionally grants The Managers, three of The Board's eight members, executive authorities and titles, and The Board appoints a general leader, The Chairman, from among themselves. The Board lacks the capacity to create legislation outside of embassies, war, peace, and checking The WA Delegate's power, and its members can be impeached.

- A lower legislative body, The House of Representatives, consisting of all nations residing in Libertatem and endowed with the power to impeach any member of The Board by the simple majority vote of participating residents and to pass legislation of any kind by the two-thirds majority vote of all residents.

- An executive body wherein The Founder retains supreme authority, The WA Delegate possesses The Founder's powers at The Founder's discretion and becomes so by having the most endorsements, The Vice WA Delegate breaks ties on The Board's votes and becomes so by having the most endorsements of any nation who is not The WA Delegate and is not already on The Board, as determined by The Founder, and The Managers cooperate with The Founder and The WA Delegate to dictate strategy and policy.

- A judicial body composed of The Founder, to whom cases are submitted, The Attorney General, who The Founder appoints to make cases for the bodies of government, and optionally The People's Attorney, who The House of Representatives may appoint to criticize and challenge the bodies of government. Each member additionally reserves the right to present a case to The Founder independently, provided they can justify such using existing law.

- An amendment system through which The Constitution can be changed if two of the three of the following are attained: the approval of The Founder, the unanimous consensus of The Board and The WA Delegate and The Vice WA Delegate, or the consensus of at least one third of The House of Representatives. The Founder was also endowed with the capacity to unilaterally change The Constitution for two months after its ratification.

- The capacity of The Founder, or The WA Delegate with six-eighths approval of The Board, to suspend The Constitution in order to unilaterally combat a threat such as the imminent destruction of the population, RMB spam, illegal recruitment telegrams, or a leftist coup.

- The ratification of The Constitution by prominent members - at the time, a two-thirds majority of the existing members of The Board.

- A bill of rights, specifying - among other things - that any rights not designated to the government are reserved to the residents respectively.

- A policy precedent decrying authoritarian leftism.

- An informal party system.

While that document would probably best not be reinstated as written, it would be a very good start for devising a minarchic political organization.

San Carlos Islands

I'm down for a new government if that is what people want, but I would suggest we don't involve the WA delegate at all, keep raiding at a negligible threat

Pevvania, Narland, Rateria, West Smolcasm

I also don't think giving anyone the unilateral ability to suspend a new constitution is a good idea.

"The Board" also seems a little oligarchic to me

Rateria, San Carlos Islands, West Smolcasm

Given our current level of activity I would suggest a single chamber legislature of 3 people. If that is the route we go

Narland, Rateria, West Smolcasm

I mean how many people are active here? like 10-14 at most?

Rateria, West Smolcasm

The United States Of Patriots wrote:Given our current level of activity I would suggest a single chamber legislature of 3 people. If that is the route we go

Or we could allow anyone who has resided in the region for a certain period of time be a legislator. That would grant a voice to a larger number of the active people.

The United States Of Patriots wrote:I'm down for a new government if that is what people want, but I would suggest we don't involve the WA delegate at all, keep raiding at a negligible threat

The United States Of Patriots wrote:I also don't think giving anyone the unilateral ability to suspend a new constitution is a good idea.

"The Board" also seems a little oligarchic to me

The United States Of Patriots wrote:Given our current level of activity I would suggest a single chamber legislature of 3 people. If that is the route we go

The United States Of Patriots wrote:I mean how many people are active here? like 10-14 at most?

I almost completely agree with all of this. Granted, I still like the general name and concept of the Board and think it would be a fitting name for a small, representative unicameral legislature (maybe we could call our executive the CEO or something like that), though if that is our only legislature, we might want to grant the populace the power of referendum or the like.

Narland, Rateria

The United States Of Patriots wrote:I also don't think giving anyone the unilateral ability to suspend a new constitution is a good idea.

"The Board" also seems a little oligarchic to me

Perhaps the Trustees?

Rateria

The United States Of Patriots wrote:

"The Board" also seems a little oligarchic to me

You're right. "The Great Masters of Libertatem" is a much better title.

Rateria, Jadentopian Order, West Smolcasm

Miencraft wrote:You're right. "The Great Masters of Libertatem" is a much better title.

Please, have some respect for our traditions.

It's "Master Debaters."

Miencraft, Rateria, Jadentopian Order

"The Hill: Schumer: Trump threatened to keep government shut down for years"

DEW IT

The New United States

Miencraft wrote:You're right. "The Great Masters of Libertatem" is a much better title.

That sounds like a power metal band.

Jadentopian Order, West Smolcasm

San Carlos Islands wrote:Or we could allow anyone who has resided in the region for a certain period of time be a legislator. That would grant a voice to a larger number of the active people.

West Smolcasm wrote:I almost completely agree with all of this. Granted, I still like the general name and concept of the Board and think it would be a fitting name for a small, representative unicameral legislature (maybe we could call our executive the CEO or something like that), though if that is our only legislature, we might want to grant the populace the power of referendum or the like.

In the Liberosia/Snabagag era Libertatem (which you can read the Constitution of here) we had a delegate, which I renamed and retconned as president, Board and House of Representatives. The problem we ran into though was that when inactivity crashed in mid-2013 and we lost the bulk of our active members, we were unable to pass anything because we needed the House which had mostly inactive nations by this point. But I don't really like the idea of a region-wide legislative body because it just makes government too bloated and decision-making inefficient.

Instead I think occasional and appropriate citizen referenda would be a better idea. We're a pretty small region relative to our size a year or two ago, so having a lean, effective and efficient government would be the best system, in my opinion.

The New United States, Rateria

Post self-deleted by The States Of Balloon.

Pevvania wrote:DEW IT

Maybe all those government employees who are concerned about how they're going to get paid with no operational government will go out and get one of the 300k real jobs that opened up last month.

Pevvania, The New United States

Miencraft wrote:Maybe all those government employees who are concerned about how they're going to get paid with no operational government will go out and get one of the 300k real jobs that opened up last month.

Maybe. Only in a post-Obama economy could the unemployment rate going up be a GOOD thing - labor force participation just ticked up to the highest percentage since 2012, which is tremendous news.

The New United States

In other news, Soulja Boy's discord channel got hacked, admin privileges were revoked, and the two thousand or more commoners were granted all rights. Hundreds of bans ensued, all channels were deleted, and God knows what else went on. There are even rumors that Soulja Boy himself was deleted from the server.

The New United States

Pevvania wrote:"The Hill: Schumer: Trump threatened to keep government shut down for years"

DEW IT

Miencraft wrote:Maybe all those government employees who are concerned about how they're going to get paid with no operational government will go out and get one of the 300k real jobs that opened up last month.

Maybe if the shutdown lasts long enough, people will see that the world has kept spinning and that most of the federal government is unnecessary. Probably not, but a boy can dream.

Miencraft

Post self-deleted by Narland.

Post self-deleted by Narland.

I have ten demands that must be met (or adequately ignored) before a new government is ever established:

1. Lib is god of Libertatem.

2. His church is the church.

3. I am the patriarch, and therefore the law.

4. I get to hurt people and take their stuff.

5. No Jews allowed.

6. No shoes, no socks, no pants, no shirts, no underwear, no service.

7. No potatoes.

8. No blasphemers.

9. No fortnite.

10. No homo.

You have 48 hours.

*End of transmission*

Highway Eight wrote:

5. No Jews allowed.

Approved.

The New Icelandic Commonwealth

Hello, I'm just gonna stay here and develop my nation

Narland, The New United States, The United States Of Patriots

Very interesting post from Unbiased America on Facebook:

NO, THE POOR AND DISADVANTAGED ARE NOT DISPROPORTIONATELY REPRESENTED IN THE MILITARY

By Kevin Ryan

I keep hearing a false narrative being repeated that the military recruits mostly from poor families, minorities, and the “lower skilled”, the implication being that the wealthy, privileged class stays home, safe and sound, while the disadvantaged are forced by their circumstances into the dangerous job of protecting them, essentially becoming “victims of the system”.

The reality is quite different than the narrative.

INCOME: The military consists mostly of people from higher income neighborhoods. 25% come from the wealthiest quintile, compared to only 10% from the poorest quintile.

RACE: Whites and blacks make up almost exactly the same percent of enlisted personnel as their percent of the general population. The recruit-to-population ratio for whites is 1.06, and for blacks it is 1.08. Hispanics, meanwhile, are significantly underrepresented among enlisted personnel, with a recruit-to-population ratio of just 0.65.

As for military fatalities, in Iraq, whites made up 75% of fatalities, despite comprising just 62% of the population. Blacks and Hispanics, meanwhile, are both underrepresented; the same is true in Afghanistan.

EDUCATION: American soldiers are MORE educated than their peers. Only about 1% of enlisted personnel lack a high-school degree, compared to 21% of men 18 to 24 years old in the general population. That’s because the military requires most of its recruits to have a high school degree.

None of which is to denigrate the poor, or minorities, many of whom fought and died for their country. Instead, the point is to debunk the common notion that the military is a career of last resort for low-income, disadvantaged people. That may have been true at times in this country’s past, but it’s no longer the case.

http://freakonomics.com/2008/09/22/who-serves-in-the-military-today/?fbclid=IwAR19hoYZnf6KHHaoreCmB4X7u0BY5UA1FLXekhwFqn2uS3NiY_cC29JSb04

Miencraft, Narland, The New United States, Rateria

Pevvania wrote:... POOR AND DISADVANTAGED NOT DISPROPORTIONATELY REPRESENTED IN THE MILITARY

By Kevin Ryan... snip...

That was true under Carter after decades of Leftists in Congress and the Presidency (Nixon included) ruining the economy and passing out poverty like candy in the form of:

1. hawk gov as solution for "societal ill X" with unprecedented debt to pay for unprecedented regulatory grabs and tax entanglements,

2. create artificial stimulus by debasing the currency through unprecedented fiduciary schemes,

3. monetize that debt slowly over the next decade into the productive sectors so workers don't riot over the steady theft of their resources by inflation.

4. blame the ebil business owners for the ensuing price increases/lowered quality and for them resisting the oppressive new "liberal" "enlightened" regimen,

5. create gov mandated wage hikes and mandatory gov abuse perks in the name of "benefits" that surviving businesses must now execute in the name of livability creating even more unemployment and burdensome over-regulation,

6. blame Capitalism for the problems they've caused and the wreck of a so-called economy,

7. rinse and repeat until "We are all Socialists now!"

I cannot believe how closely we missed the bullet with Hillary being elected to reinforcing that cycle in returning to Keynesian business as usual. Trump said that he would not approve another such bill, but we shall see. It is good to hear that a volunteer Military is reflecting the general demographics.

Rateria

shut down the government forever

Highway Eight wrote:I have ten demands that must be met (or adequately ignored) before a new government is ever established:

1. Lib is god of Libertatem.

2. His church is the church.

3. I am the patriarch, and therefore the law.

4. I get to hurt people and take their stuff.

5. No Jews allowed.

6. No shoes, no socks, no pants, no shirts, no underwear, no service.

7. No potatoes.

8. No blasphemers.

9. No fortnite.

10. No homo.

You have 48 hours.

*End of transmission*

Ah, yes, very libertarian of you. Quite freedom. Much little-government.

Oof, my own criticism of the region was suppressed by the Red Fleet

I'm not opposing The Red Fleet. I moved my puppet here literally just to call out the "libertarian" government becoming fascist

Freien Bash Machine Iv

What this actually shows is that we are still relevant in the eyes of TRF. Lol.

Miencraft, Rateria, The New Icelandic Commonwealth

Highway Eight wrote:What this actually shows is that we are still relevant in the eyes of TRF. Lol.

Honestly what a bunch of pathetic losers

Rateria

Memezambique wrote:I'm not opposing The Red Fleet. I moved my puppet here literally just to call out the "libertarian" government becoming fascist

"Become fascist"

The Memearchy of Libertatem was born fascist.

Rateria

The New Icelandic Commonwealth wrote:Honestly what a bunch of pathetic losers

They aren't enlightened enough to understand our philosophical existence.

Rateria

Well, that was odd. What exactly happened here?

Rateria

West Smolcasm wrote:Well, that was odd. What exactly happened here?

The Communists wanted our attention. Guess we've neglected them.

Rateria, The New Icelandic Commonwealth

Highway Eight wrote:The Communists wanted our attention. Guess we've neglected them.

Well, I gathered that part.

I suppose it doesn't matter. The more important question to ask is "What do we do now?"

Rateria, The New Icelandic Commonwealth

West Smolcasm wrote:Well, I gathered that part.

I suppose it doesn't matter. The more important question to ask is "What do we do now?"

Wait for someone to clean up.

Rateria

Highway Eight wrote:Wait for someone to clean up.

Aside from our apparent guardian angel, that someone would be...?

Rateria, Highway Eight, The New Icelandic Commonwealth

West Smolcasm wrote:Aside from our apparent guardian angel, that someone would be...?

Satan?

Rateria

Condy watching over us :')

Rateria, Highway Eight, The New Icelandic Commonwealth

Memezambique wrote:Ah, yes, very libertarian of you. Quite freedom. Much little-government.

You're dense

Rateria, Highway Eight

Poor people are swine.

Guys maybe you should start a new regional government to protect yourselves from something like this happening ever again

The New Icelandic Commonwealth wrote:Guys maybe you should start a new regional government to protect yourselves from something like this happening ever again

Nah, the problem was nobody cared enough to pop onto Liberosia to keep him from CTE.

Post self-deleted by The United States Of Patriots.

Highway Eight wrote:Poor people are swine.

Why has wil CTE'd?

Well my nearly 2 year rein as WA shadow-dictator of Libertatem ended today

Rateria

FREE WILHELM

Rateria, The United States Of Patriots, Highway Eighty-Eight

Nice to know Condy looks over us :)

Rateria, The United States Of Patriots, Highway Eighty-Eight

He was probably banned for his factbook and/or flag

Rateria, Highway Eighty-Eight

Aw, looks like I missed the fun. I was hoping to parlay with some of my old rivals :,(

Rateria, Highway Eighty-Eight

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:Apparently the mods don't understand satire. They banned me for something they explicitly told me was okay to have as a flag.Aye

Wilhelm did nothing wrong.

OUR BOY IS BACK

Rateria, Highway Eighty-Eight

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:The only thing that can stop my irony is mod... Wait nevermind.

That kind of sucks though. You've had one of the greatest nations on the game tbh.

Rateria, Highway Eighty-Eight

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

The basement dwellers with too much time on their hands tried attacking us again. It's a shame they failed, they might have actually accomplished something.

Republic Of Minerva, Rateria

Soo, what happened? I was busy today. I guess we got invaded and the suppressed a bunch of forum posts and closed all our embassies?

Rateria, West Smolcasm

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Pevvania wrote:The basement dwellers with too much time on their hands tried attacking us again. It's a shame they failed, they might have actually accomplished something.

The new WFE looks better anyway; I suppose it's just as well that they gave us an excuse to do some redecorating.

Wait a minute...

do some redecorating.

redecorating.

redecorating

WE'VE BEEN PLAYING RIGHT INTO THEIR HANDS

Pevvania, Rateria, The United States Of Patriots, The New Icelandic Commonwealth, Highway Eighty-Eight

Big dick condy RAPES and PUNISHES red fleet with FACTS and LOGIC

Miencraft, Rateria, Skaveria, The New Icelandic Commonwealth, Highway Eighty-Eight

if the mods dont unban wil im going to say mean words to them

Rateria, Highway Eighty-Eight

So a mod can just delete a nation without any warning or expressed reason? Also, this happening during the red fleet invasion is the kind of stuff thatcould start conspiracy theories... Not saying it is... But... It's a pretty big coincidence.

The Chad Condy vs. the Virgin Misley

Miencraft, Rateria, Jadentopian Order, The New Icelandic Commonwealth, Highway Eighty-Eight

Republic Of Minerva wrote:The Chad Condy vs. the Virgin Misley

Isn't it the other way around?

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