Post Archive

Region: Libertatem

History

The Screaming Void wrote:The issue is that Trump and the GOP represent the rich. They do whatever they can to make the rich richer (and consequently, the poor poorer). And some working class people vote for them just to give the middle finger to... who, exactly? Anyone with a college degree? Anyone who doesn't eat fast food? Anyone who drives a sedan instead of a truck?

And the dems don't do the same? At least in my view the dems represent rich Hollywood or Google types and the reps represent the stock broker or banker types. I never really bought into the "holier than thou poorer than thou" mentality. Just because someone is poorer than someone else does not give them ideological sainthood just like how being wealthier does not.

The Screaming Void wrote:Voting for someone who will make your life worse, for no other reasons than jealousy and spite, makes you look like an idiot. So I can understand those liberals who look down on the people who do that. Many conservatives also look down on the people who do that.

I'm not going to assume what he was saying but what I took from that is he was saying the left people were jealous, however not all people voted out of spite. I myself abstained from voting (I hated both Trump and Hillary) but my father voted Trump to get his taxes lowered and to be able to get his insurance back (according to him it became too expensive after Obama) and from what I see he's achieved at least one. Looking back on it now I'd probably vote Trump because I think he isn't as bad as Hillary would've been.

The New United States

Skaveria wrote:I constantly hear claims of erasing people's existance or denying someone's humanity. It's not that serious guys. Even the most hardcore conservative who thinks transgenderism is a mental illness knows they're people and wouldn't want them round up and shot.

I wouldn't pretend to know what people who are, quite frankly, dangerously uninformed on such matters wouldn't want.

Skaveria wrote:It's the constant acting like you're being genocided while also being annoying and condescending to the rest of us that was the perfect combination of ignorance and arrogance that propelled Trump to the white house. People say Trump didn't win the election, Hillary lost the election, but I disagree. I didn't want some milktoast Republican who was gonna pander to them while they call him a dictator like they did Bush for 8 years. Trump is a personified middle finger from the middle of the country to the soft-necked, twead-wearing, ironically bourgeoisie, socialist, college students who look down their noses at anyone who drives a truck to work and eats fast food.

If governments ran on spite, we'd have achieved utopia long ago.

The way I see it, the GOP offered America - all of America - a middle finger in a time when it needed a helping hand. They chose to fight a president who became a celebrity because of his political contributions not with small-government, free-market counterpoints, but with a celebrity of their own, one who lacked this political experience. They promised a miracle and delivered instead a spectacle.

The Screaming Void wrote:Voting for someone who will make your life worse, for no other reasons than jealousy and spite, makes you look like an idiot. So I can understand those liberals who look down on the people who do that. Many conservatives also look down on the people who do that.

I doubt true conservatives exist as such anymore, but if they did, they certainly would look down on such people. There was once a time when conservatives were united by more than just antipathy for liberals and socialists - a time when they would have stood for liberty, tradition, and patriotism rather than entrusting the country to someone more dedicated to building walls around Mexico and building hotels around Russia than building on the experience of his predecessors and the wisdom of the founding fathers.

US true Conservatives (radical republican (little r) types) who conserve Classical Liberalism were greatly diminished throughout the early 20th century and lost the culture war by the 1960s. There are no more States in the US were Classical Liberals (whether paleocon or paleolib) hold sway. Majority of Democrats are full blown Statists, and most of the GOP move toward Statism through slow drip and inaction.

A CL Conservative by nature firstly strengthens what is good while reforming what is bad to thirdly destroy something irredeemable only as last resort. The model of platonic fitness is reinforced by objective reason and several thousand years of historic example. Liberty is the benchmark, and equality is in just application of Law. This is the bane to those whose history only goes back to 1848, and want first to impede that which they cannot change while transforming that which they can to finally destroying anything that they cannot claim as their own. Their Hegelian model of Progressive dialectic is marked by Nihilistic deconstruction defaming anything not of their own contemporaneous making especially that and those they seek to replace. Power is the benchmark and equality is the arbitrary debasement of everyone to the lowest common denominator except the rare few who are more equal than the others in their enforcement of the new order.

They press for civil war but Conservatives just want to be left the hell alone to govern themselves and continue the American experiment. You may find them in places like Wyoming or Alaska where they still have civil power at the town or county level, but Statists are damned determine if they cannot convert them to their religion Statecraft they will at least wear them down through taxes, over-regulation, and defamation. No quarter is asked and none is given.

The New United States

The Screaming Void wrote:The issue is that Trump and the GOP represent the rich. They do whatever they can to make the rich richer (and consequently, the poor poorer). And some working class people vote for them just to give the middle finger to... who, exactly? Anyone with a college degree? Anyone who doesn't eat fast food? Anyone who drives a sedan instead of a truck?

Voting for someone who will make your life worse, for no other reasons than jealousy and spite, makes you look like an idiot. So I can understand those liberals who look down on the people who do that. Many conservatives also look down on the people who do that.

Good sir, you are woefully misinformed. The Republican Party is as malleable as any other group, but the ideal of free market capitalism, which it at least outwardly claims to follow, is quite the opposite of biased towards the rich. Trump and the GOP's economic policies have benefitted all income groups. 'Republicans favor the rich' is a tired and boring straw man that should have faded from public discourse in the 1980s, when 'Reaganomics' reinvigorated the American economy and made this country entreprenerial and aspirational once more - much of which benefitted the poor and middle class. I always find it funny when the left talk about the "disappearing middle class" - it's disappearing because Americans are disproportionately joining higher income groups!

Similarly, President Trump's economic policies have benefitted ordinary Americans far more than his predecessor. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act doubled the standard deduction - exempting millions of people from paying taxes altogether - and according to an analysis by the left-leaning Tax Policy Center, lower- and middle-class Americans received the largest percentage cuts in their individual income taxes (https://www.cato.org/blog/who-gained-tax-cuts). Deregulation, too, has been wonderful for the American economy and small business. As I hope you would know, most regulations are passed at the behest of special interests to impose barriers to entry or make competition more difficult. The partial repeal of Dodd-Frank in 2018 was bipartisan in nature, because many Democrats realized that the original law was crushing community banks across the country. Even with his controversial healthcare bill in 2017, that would have slashed premiums by 10% over 10 years. President Trump has been a champion of the common man. And I suppose I'll briefly mention the economic numbers: lowest unemployment rate in 50 years. Labor force participation going up after years of decline under Obama. Lowest ever black and Hispanic unemployment. Millions of Americans coming off of Food Stamps. Highest small business confidence ever. First year of 3% GDP growth since before the recession. These are benefitting all Americans.

You know which party worked overtime to aid the rich at the expense of most Americans? The Democratic Party under Obama. He bailed out the banks and the auto companies, wasted almost a trillion dollars on the stimulus package that benefitted well-connected firms like Solyndra (that went bankrupt, by the way!), crafted the corporatist Affordable Care Act law that was written by health insurance lobbyists, and given the blessing of the AMA, one of the most notorious cartels of all, he supported the Export-Import Bank, passed the corporatist Dodd-Frank law, supported QE which inflated the stock market to wild highs while main street sputtered at 1-2% growth, and stacked his administration with lobbyists (look at the FCC, FDA - you name it). The establishment Democratic Party is corporatist in nature, while the insurgent socialists want to create a permanent underclass of government-reliant slaves. Ask yourself again: which is the party of the rich?

And finally, your initial point of "making the rich richer and the poor poorer" betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of economics. The process you describe does not happen in a free market. In fact, in a reasonably free market economy, the pie is always expanding, with all income groups enjoying the fruits of economic expansion. We have seen this all throughout the history of capitalism. What you are preaching is a debunked Marxist idea.

Miencraft, Narland, The New United States, Rateria

Additionally, [nation=short]The Screaming Void[/nation], before you pour scorn on the working men and women of this country, let me remind you that many were former Democrats and union members who realized they were peddled a lie.

"We'll have a middle class tax cut" - Bill Clinton

"If you like your plan, you can keep your plan" - Barack Obama

"We're going to put a lot of coal mines out of business" - Hillary Clinton

Hate them all you want, but they were yours to lose. These supposedly dopey ol' Trump supporters figured out that the Democratic Party is a corrupt, corporatist machine that benefits its donors and ideological plans to make America a European-style corporatist-social democratic country in a state of permanent war.

Additionally, why is it ok to mock and belittle white working class voters who voted for Trump, but not the 80-90% of black voters that consistently vote Democrat despite them destroying black communities across the country? I'm sure you wouldn't tolerate the latter.

Miencraft, Narland, The New United States, Rateria

The Screaming Void wrote:The issue is that Trump and the GOP represent the rich. They do whatever they can to make the rich richer (and consequently, the poor poorer). And some working class people vote for them just to give the middle finger to... who, exactly? Anyone with a college degree? Anyone who doesn't eat fast food? Anyone who drives a sedan instead of a truck?

Voting for someone who will make your life worse, for no other reasons than jealousy and spite, makes you look like an idiot. So I can understand those liberals who look down on the people who do that. Many conservatives also look down on the people who do that.

Well, the economy isn't a fixed pie. As it turns out, making the rich richer, also makes the poor richer. I'm not talking about "Trickle down economics" either, that term was invented to slander fiscal conservatives. No conservative actually claims that by giving rich people more money, they'll generously hire more people than they need to meet the demand of the market. Rather, the idea us that by letting people keep more of their money, maybe they'll open up a second factory, then a third, employing hundreds. Low taxes and less regulation allows small businesses to develop into large ones, to really show what they have to offer. Once we get enough large businesses they'll compete with each other for customers and prices will go down, they'll compete for workers abd wages/working conditions will improve, all the while the government had to forcibly take less money than they otherwise would've.

Now, as to the cultural things I mentioned, I'll admit I was ranting a bit. It seemed obvious to me that the truck and fast food comments were just examples of a general attitude that is widely perceived by rural Americans as snobby, liberal elites who look down on them. It was really to make a point that the same people who "care for the working man" look down their nose at them in reality. Stereotyping people who drive big trucks as redneck, backwoods, rubes who are either too evil or too ignorant to "know how things really are" To not be woke is to not be enlightened to the stereotypical elite I speak of. I thought it went without saying that " not all college students or not all people who wear twead" are bad people. I was merely using a stereotype that I've observed in real life to be true, anecdotal I know, but I've seen it. I've seen the way some folks on the left look at folks on the right, as dumb and bigoted. Not all of them do of course. It's also true that resentment shouldn't be a reason to vote, but there's a widespread perception in America that all politicians are the same, at least to apolitical people it seems that way, so that sets the balance to neutral for them. All else being equal, they voted for the party that didn't casually treat them like idiots and assumed they were too dumb to notice.

Miencraft, Narland, Rateria, The United States Of Patriots

The Screaming Void wrote:The issue is that Trump and the GOP represent the rich. They do whatever they can to make the rich richer (and consequently, the poor poorer).

Economics isn't a zero-sum game.

The Screaming Void wrote:

Voting for someone who will make your life worse...

How exactly is the GOP making blue collar folks' lives worse?

The Screaming Void wrote:And some working class people vote for them just to give the middle finger to... who, exactly? Anyone with a college degree? Anyone who doesn't eat fast food? Anyone who drives a sedan instead of a truck?

It's not about jealousy or spite. It's about upending the out-of-touch establishment; the people that care more about what's happening in Kurdistan than in Coal Country, corporate interests over the general welfare, and culture-war posturing over real issues.

Miencraft, Pevvania, Narland, Rateria

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Also, as to a border wall and it's effectiveness. Know that it's fully within the rights of the United States to just militarize the southern border. A sovereign nation has the right to place troops anywhere in it's borders. I'm for the wall in principle, but the ideal situation would be to return to an anti-interventionist policy, take all our troops home from the middle east, and use them on the border. We could probably even cut military costs because it wouldn't take as many resources to control our border than it would to be the world's police. I'd like to see a return to isolationism in terms of the military, we should trade with whoever we want, but we shouldn't keep injecting troops into hellholes to the tune of fortunate son just to spread democracy. You can't force democracy, it has to develop naturally or it won't take. Just leave people alone and let them catch up to us culturally.

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:It's not about democracy, it's about fighting our enemies' puppets. It'd be suicidal to be isolationist because that'd onoy benefit China, the real threat to the West.

Well why do we need to fight China anyways? From what I've heard aren't we just in a trade war with them? Why is it on us to fight their puppet dictators? We've installed enough of those ourselves in South America to realize how well that works out. The middle east is a big, sandy, money-pit. If they wanna bankrupt themselves in it, let them. I do see, that with the dissolution of the E.U. not far away, China being the only active world power being a problem, but we don't get to mess with people just because they're powerful.

The New Icelandic Commonwealth

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Skaveria wrote:Well why do we need to fight China anyways? From what I've heard aren't we just in a trade war with them? Why is it on us to fight their puppet dictators? We've installed enough of those ourselves in South America to realize how well that works out. The middle east is a big, sandy, money-pit. If they wanna bankrupt themselves in it, let them. I do see, that with the dissolution of the E.U. not far away, China being the only active world power being a problem, but we don't get to mess with people just because they're powerful.

China's involvement in the Middle East is negligible. Perhaps the biggest problem with China is their hostility in the South China Sea, one of the most important trade routes in the world. $1.2 trillion in goods to or from the USA travel through the South China Sea every year, and China continues to unlawfully expand their presence there (island building, for example) and antagonize American vessels.

https://chinapower.csis.org/much-trade-transits-south-china-sea/

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Very proud to announce I have just been inaugurated as President of Venezuela

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

Jadentopian Order wrote:Very proud to announce I have just been inaugurated as President of Venezuela

Moving to Venezuela on one condition... can everyone else be more equal than me?

Jadentopian Order wrote:Very proud to announce I have just been inaugurated as President of Venezuela

Venezuelan chicks are hot. Send me some.

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Jadentopian Order wrote:Very proud to announce I have just been inaugurated as President of Venezuela

jahcoin new currency of venzuala

Jadentopian Order

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

The Completly Oppressive States wrote:Moving to Venezuela on one condition... can everyone else be more equal than me?

I guess so

Muh Roads wrote:Venezuelan chicks are hot. Send me some.

Women are banned.

The States Of Balloon wrote:jahcoin new currency of venzuala

The currency of tomorrow

Myself, [nation=short]Humpheria[/nation] and [nation=short]Skaveria[/nation] have been working on a constitution that we are prepared to unveil soon.

The Completly Oppressive States, Rateria, The New Icelandic Commonwealth, West Smolcasm, Highway Eighty-Eight

Jahcoin is a more stable currency than the US dollar as each jahcoin can be redeemed for one jah

Jadentopian Order

The Treasury department plans to privatize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Good. Those companies were key culprits in the subprime mortgage crisis and the consequent recession that followed, so should not have been rewarded with a competitive advantage by being nationalized.

Narland

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:After speaking to Lib, we cut down my early idea and worked my draft into this:

https://www.nationstates.net/nation=highway_eighty-eight/detail=factbook/id=1157751

Criticism, comment?

Is there anything to determine a citizen currently?

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:After speaking to Lib, we cut down my early idea and worked my draft into this:

https://www.nationstates.net/nation=highway_eighty-eight/detail=factbook/id=1157751

Criticism, comment?

I like it

Rateria, Highway Eighty-Eight

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:A provisional citizenship would be given to anyone who was eligible to vote on the actual ratification of the Constitution.

You'd be eligible to to vote on the constitution if you were in the actual region when it was formally proposed. Anyone who shows up after voting begins wou not be eligible.

I see

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:After speaking to Lib, we cut down my early idea and worked my draft into this:

https://www.nationstates.net/nation=highway_eighty-eight/detail=factbook/id=1157751

Criticism, comment?

I like articles 2 and 3. I would suggest rather than having separate roles for each of the executives they all have equal powers but take turns setting the agenda similar to rome, since I figure if we are going with the rome theme we might as well commit, Im going to go ahead and draft up my own suggestion to see how it looks. I like the start though

Rateria, Highway Eighty-Eight

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:If anyone has any better ideas, feel free to share them.

I just hope under this Gov't I can finally be considered a citizen since I wasn't granted the status from LCRUA

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:Why were thou not granted the status of an citizen?

No clue I applied for it and I believe I was told it was granted but I was never posted to the factbook

Highway Eighty-Eight

Story as how I came here for those who wonder: I was originally in the Communist Bloc and when they became increasingly more intolerant of Condy and I. he advised I go to LCRUA as at that time I felt I was gonna be ejected for my beliefs anyways. So I resided there until its unfortunate death and left for here. I applied for citizenship and here I am lol

Rateria, West Smolcasm

Now its my turn.

Please help me with grammar. I tend to form run on sentences

https://www.nationstates.net/nation=the_united_states_of_patriots/detail=factbook/id=1157818

Thoughts?

Rateria, West Smolcasm, Highway Eighty-Eight

Also I chose not to include a preface on purpose. I figured that that would take more time to hash out

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:After speaking to Lib, we cut down my early idea and worked my draft into this:

https://www.nationstates.net/nation=highway_eighty-eight/detail=factbook/id=1157751

Criticism, comment?

It seems a tad oligarchic, but definitely workable for a population of our size.

The United States Of Patriots wrote:Now its my turn.

Please help me with grammar. I tend to form run on sentences

https://www.nationstates.net/nation=the_united_states_of_patriots/detail=factbook/id=1157818

Thoughts?

I like the rights section of this one better, as well as the non-specific nature of the duties of each individual Consulate.

Rateria, The United States Of Patriots

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

West Smolcasm wrote:It seems a tad oligarchic, but definitely workable for a population of our size.

I like the rights section of this one better, as well as the non-specific nature of the duties of each individual Consulate.

Might I ask what you think of the Tribune position.

I decided to include it in order to balance the power of a combined legislative and executive body by giving the citizens the power to veto with out having to run a poll every time a bill is passed

I've updated it quite a bit now. More details about elections and recalls as well as an amendment process

Jadentopian Order wrote:I guess so,

Women are sexy and the currency of tomorrow

It seems like a lot of the proposals are very similar to previous governments with a lot of effort put in to making sure we don’t re-use the same terms.

I think if we could combine the current proposals for structure we would be good. I think republican government is objectively the best, we just don’t need it to be as big as it has been in the past.

West Smolcasm

Lol a new government

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

I like the separated executive powers with none being the head of the 3. I'm not a fan of strong executives

Narland, West Smolcasm, Highway Eighty-Eight

Trump caves on shutdown. Even though he's only agreed to reopening the government for three weeks while "negotiations" occur over border security, this is a symbolically big concession. Now the Democrats smell blood and will go after Trump like rabid dogs. If he wants the wall built, he should just declare a national emergency and get the appropriations that way.

Here's a hot take: Trump should start an investigation into Nancy Pelosi's corrupt business dealings (husband's government contracts) to pressure the Dems into agreeing to the wall.

Or better yet, investigate and indict ALL congressmen and women for ethics violations, conflicts of interest and betraying the constitution. You'd probably have a few dozen members left at most after that.

I'm mostly pro-choice and playing devil's advocate here, but hasn't the rise of abortion in the US since Roe vs. Wade been the biggest experiment in eugenics in modern history? The majority of the 60 million abortions performed since 1973 were done to low-income African-American women. Abortion advocates often tell us that it's been a social good that has reduced violence and crime, because millions of potential "criminals" and poor people were never born. Is this not textbook eugenics?

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:I suppose you're opposed to the investigations being conducted against the current administration and some of it's former employees?

Nope, not opposed at all. Trump has unmistakably hired some bad people, i.e. Pruitt and Zinke, and should be treated with the blind hammer of justice if they have indeed violated the law. The Mueller probe is a complete waste of time that's largely uncovered crimes totally unrelated to Russian collusion, but sure, let's have it go on so we can get to the truth (which I believe will vindicate him).

Government is inherently corrupt, and even people with the best of intentions are fallible. I would have said the same thing about Iran-Contra or any other scandal.

Narland

Humpheria wrote:It seems like a lot of the proposals are very similar to previous governments with a lot of effort put in to making sure we don’t re-use the same terms.

I think if we could combine the current proposals for structure we would be good. I think republican government is objectively the best, we just don’t need it to be as big as it has been in the past.

Not even gonna say hi brah

Pevvania wrote:Here's a hot take: Trump should start an investigation into Nancy Pelosi's corrupt business dealings (husband's government contracts) to pressure the Dems into agreeing to the wall.

I wouldn't want to investigate anything Nancy Pelosi has touched 🤢

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:I felt it was necessary to establish a small government.

I considered giving non-specific powers to individual consuls, but I could see conflicts arising from such a situation that I personally would like to avoid.

I concede the point - you're most likely right about that.

The United States Of Patriots wrote:Might I ask what you think of the Tribune position.

A perplexing addition. I still don't quite get it - we should focus more on codifying the means by which the people may veto the Consulate's decisions rather than having them appoint someone to do it for them, which won't necessarily work as hoped.

Pevvania wrote:I'm mostly pro-choice and playing devil's advocate here, but hasn't the rise of abortion in the US since Roe vs. Wade been the biggest experiment in eugenics in modern history? The majority of the 60 million abortions performed since 1973 were done to low-income African-American women. Abortion advocates often tell us that it's been a social good that has reduced violence and crime, because millions of potential "criminals" and poor people were never born. Is this not textbook eugenics?

“I’m mostly pro-choice”

I just threw up in my mouth

The New United States, The United States Of Patriots, The New Icelandic Commonwealth

Pevvania wrote:Trump caves on shutdown. Even though he's only agreed to reopening the government for three weeks while "negotiations" occur over border security, this is a symbolically big concession. Now the Democrats smell blood and will go after Trump like rabid dogs. If he wants the wall built, he should just declare a national emergency and get the appropriations that way.

800,000 civil servants shouldn't suffer because of a useless wall.

Instead of establishing a new government only to get some short term activity and a rerun of Libertatem politics, we should just debate the potential Constitution forever

Miencraft, Highway Eighty-Eight

Humpheria wrote:“I’m mostly pro-choice”

I just threw up in my mouth

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9RJDgosY_s

Venomringo wrote:800,000 civil servants shouldn't suffer because of a useless wall.

>being a bootlicker

Pevvania

In more good news from Brazil, Austro-libertarians now head the Bank of Brazil, the Ministry of Economy, the Ministry of Education, and the new secretariat of privatization.

God bless Brazil. 🇧🇷

https://staging.acton.org/pub/commentary/2019/01/23/brazil-takes-austrian-turn

Rateria

Venomringo wrote:Instead of establishing a new government only to get some short term activity and a rerun of Libertatem politics, we should just debate the potential Constitution forever

Revive TTA, Mhomen, and Hallo.

That'll get things real nice and alive.

The New United States, Rateria, West Smolcasm

Miencraft wrote:Revive TTA, Mhomen, and Hallo.

That'll get things real nice and alive.

What ever happened to Hallo and RRRG? Am I remembering right that Hallo became a leftist?

Miencraft, Rateria

The New United States wrote:What ever happened to Hallo and RRRG? Am I remembering right that Hallo became a leftist?

I think you’re right. The last time I checked on his nation, he had some leftist dispatches on his page that he wrote.

New poll in Zentari, come and vote!

https://www.nationstates.net/page=poll/p=136357

Rateria

Rateria wrote:I think you’re right. The last time I checked on his nation, he had some leftist dispatches on his page that he wrote.

barely real communism at all

Rateria

I'm sick and tired of seeing all these pro-abortion arguments on Facebook that miss the point entirely.

I saw one that was a spin off of the "hard to swallow pills" meme. It said: "Just because you personally don't like abortions doesn't mean you can restrict them from women who need them."

Pro-life people think abortion is MURDER. A good rule of thumb when you're talking to a pro-life person is this: Replace the word abortion with murder, and if you sound like a sociopath, they're not gonna be on the same page.

OBVIOUSLY if I thought a fetus didn't have the same value as a human being I would be pro-choice in two milliseconds.

This isn't about women, it's about babies. If men were the ones who gave birth my opinion would remain the same. This isn't some thinnly vealed sexism.

The New United States, The New Icelandic Commonwealth, West Smolcasm

Greetings from your newest colony!

The New United States, Rateria

Miencraft wrote:barely real communism at all

"Many rightists and conservatives are very ignorant towards communism."

stopped reading

Miencraft, The New United States, Rateria

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Skaveria wrote:I'm sick and tired of seeing all these pro-abortion arguments on Facebook that miss the point entirely.

I saw one that was a spin off of the "hard to swallow pills" meme. It said: "Just because you personally don't like abortions doesn't mean you can restrict them from women who need them."

Pro-life people think abortion is MURDER. A good rule of thumb when you're talking to a pro-life person is this: Replace the word abortion with murder, and if you sound like a sociopath, they're not gonna be on the same page.

OBVIOUSLY if I thought a fetus didn't have the same value as a human being I would be pro-choice in two milliseconds.

This isn't about women, it's about babies. If men were the ones who gave birth my opinion would remain the same. This isn't some thinnly vealed sexism.

Mate piss off. Just because YOU don't want to murder someone doesn't mean you can tell me or other people with little siblings that WE shouldn't be allowed to.

The New United States, The Holy Brittannian Empire, Skaveria, Highway Eighty-Eight

Ethikon wrote:Greetings from your newest colony!

THE TINGLES

The New United States

Humpheria wrote:“I’m mostly pro-choice”

I just threw up in my mouth

Sorry Humph, but up to the point of viability the right of the woman overrides that of the baby. The fetus is a living creature and it's very sad that abortion needs to exist, but it does, and outlawing it will do nothing to reduce its prevalence. Any reasonable person, however, should still support defunding Planned Parenthood and bans on third-trimester abortions.

Miencraft, Muh Roads, Jadentopian Order, West Smolcasm

Skaveria wrote:I'm sick and tired of seeing all these pro-abortion arguments on Facebook that miss the point entirely.

I saw one that was a spin off of the "hard to swallow pills" meme. It said: "Just because you personally don't like abortions doesn't mean you can restrict them from women who need them."

Pro-life people think abortion is MURDER. A good rule of thumb when you're talking to a pro-life person is this: Replace the word abortion with murder, and if you sound like a sociopath, they're not gonna be on the same page.

OBVIOUSLY if I thought a fetus didn't have the same value as a human being I would be pro-choice in two milliseconds.

This isn't about women, it's about babies. If men were the ones who gave birth my opinion would remain the same. This isn't some thinnly vealed sexism.

Yes, a large number of pro-choice arguments are just ad hominems. A personal favorite is "if you're not a woman you shouldn't have an opinion on abortion". Lol okay, I suppose if you're not a gun owner you shouldn't have an opinion on guns, then! Many polls actually show women are more opposed to abortion than men are.

The New United States

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Pevvania wrote:Sorry Humph, but up to the point of viability the right of the woman overrides that of the baby. The fetus is a living creature and it's very sad that abortion needs to exist, but it does, and outlawing it will do nothing to reduce its prevalence. Any reasonable person, however, should still support defunding Planned Parenthood and bans on third-trimester abortions.

I agree with this for the most part, but something I would like to point out is that the services of Planned Parenthood affiliates vary by location; abortion is one service of many - one, I might add, that is offered by barely half of these affiliates. The majority of their clients are at or below 150 percent of the federal poverty level and rely on them for birth control, contraception, pregnancy testing/counseling, STI/STD testing/treatment, vasectomy procedures, cancer screenings - even sex education, LGBT services, and treatment for erectile dysfunction.

Granted, the current funding arrangement is certainly far from ideal, but simply defunding this organization would be a major blow to the quality of life for America's working poor and minorities, if not a move that would contribute to an unfortunate and avoidable loss of life. You may see this allocation of federal funds as a waste of money; I see it as the establishment of a more sensible middleman between a nanny state and those who depend on it - a tenuous but ultimately necessary first step towards elevating the working class above needing the government to assume direct control of their lives and livelihoods. It just so happens that this particular step, as a matter of circumstance, offends the delicate sensibilities of obsessive traditionalists who pass themselves off as conservatives.

Jadentopian Order

Don't be a fool, wrap your tool

The New United States, Rateria, The Holy Brittannian Empire, Jadentopian Order, Highway Eighty-Eight

Pevvania wrote:Sorry Humph, but up to the point of viability the right of the woman overrides that of the baby. The fetus is a living creature and it's very sad that abortion needs to exist, but it does, and outlawing it will do nothing to reduce its prevalence. Any reasonable person, however, should still support defunding Planned Parenthood and bans on third-trimester abortions.

In 1971 there were 190.000 abortions in the US according to Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Ten years later it was 1.300.000. Roe v Wade was in 1973. I don't think it's true that outlawing it wouldn't reduce the frequency of abortion.

The New United States

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

The New Icelandic Commonwealth wrote:In 1971 there were 190.000 abortions in the US according to Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Ten years later it was 1.300.000. Roe v Wade was in 1973. I don't think it's true that outlawing it wouldn't reduce the frequency of abortion.

Bear in mind that things that are illegal:

1) Are less likely to be reported as happening because if you say you're doing it you're confessing to a crime;

2) If they're done, are more likely to be done in secret so that nobody would know the actual frequency anyways;

3) Aren't regulated at all so when they do happen, regardless of frequency, are far less safe for everyone involved

Rateria, Jadentopian Order, West Smolcasm, Highway Eighty-Eight

Miencraft wrote:Bear in mind that things that are illegal:

1) Are less likely to be reported as happening because if you say you're doing it you're confessing to a crime;

2) If they're done, are more likely to be done in secret so that nobody would know the actual frequency anyways;

3) Aren't regulated at all so when they do happen, regardless of frequency, are far less safe for everyone involved

Cool

West Smolcasm wrote:I agree with this for the most part, but something I would like to point out is that the services of Planned Parenthood affiliates vary by location; abortion is one service of many - one, I might add, that is offered by barely half of these affiliates. The majority of their clients are at or below 150 percent of the federal poverty level and rely on them for birth control, contraception, pregnancy testing/counseling, STI/STD testing/treatment, vasectomy procedures, cancer screenings - even sex education, LGBT services, and treatment for erectile dysfunction.

Granted, the current funding arrangement is certainly far from ideal, but simply defunding this organization would be a major blow to the quality of life for America's working poor and minorities, if not a move that would contribute to an unfortunate and avoidable loss of life. You may see this allocation of federal funds as a waste of money; I see it as the establishment of a more sensible middleman between a nanny state and those who depend on it - a tenuous but ultimately necessary first step towards elevating the working class above needing the government to assume direct control of their lives and livelihoods. It just so happens that this particular step, as a matter of circumstance, offends the delicate sensibilities of obsessive traditionalists who pass themselves off as conservatives.

As much as I'm aware of the genuine services it provides, I still have some big problems with it. First of all, corporate welfare and aid to business, of any kind, is wrong and unconstitutional. Secondly, Planned Parenthood does not need the money. They spend tens of millions of dollars a year on political advocacy, and much of its revenue comes from charitable and private contributions. They are in many ways an arm of the liberal-Democratic apparatus, so we don't need to be giving them money. If we defund it, private charities, donors and other organizations will bridge the gap.

The New United States, Skaveria

Pevvania wrote:As much as I'm aware of the genuine services it provides, I still have some big problems with it. First of all, corporate welfare and aid to business, of any kind, is wrong and unconstitutional. Secondly, Planned Parenthood does not need the money. They spend tens of millions of dollars a year on political advocacy, and much of its revenue comes from charitable and private contributions. They are in many ways an arm of the liberal-Democratic apparatus, so we don't need to be giving them money. If we defund it, private charities, donors and other organizations will bridge the gap.

Also they can get the money from the baby body parts they sell

Pevvania, The New United States

Hey, I am looking for approval for my proposal in the General Assembly and am hoping that I can get some support from your region

Sincerely,

Atheo Delegate of New URGV

Pevvania wrote:As much as I'm aware of the genuine services it provides, I still have some big problems with it. First of all, corporate welfare and aid to business, of any kind, is wrong and unconstitutional. Secondly, Planned Parenthood does not need the money. They spend tens of millions of dollars a year on political advocacy, and much of its revenue comes from charitable and private contributions. They are in many ways an arm of the liberal-Democratic apparatus, so we don't need to be giving them money. If we defund it, private charities, donors and other organizations will bridge the gap.

I lack your confidence in the market's ability - or should I say willingness - to self-correct; I'm sure many pro-life advocates would jump at the chance to exploit any financial instability within organizations they see as complicit in mass murder by any means necessary.

Like it or not, the state would surely try to take the matter into its own hands if it did not have the option of deferring it, and as you know, governments are even more prone to skewed priorities and financial mismanagement than businesses because they need not follow the same rules. While rather irresponsible, it is far from unreasonable for the state to compensate organizations that do the public a greater service than it ever could.

Muh Roads, Highway Eighty-Eight

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

West Smolcasm wrote:I lack your confidence in the market's ability - or should I say willingness - to self-correct; I'm sure many pro-life advocates would jump at the chance to exploit any financial instability within organizations they see as complicit in mass murder by any means necessary.

Like it or not, the state would surely try to take the matter into its own hands if it did not have the option of deferring it, and as you know, governments are even more prone to skewed priorities and financial mismanagement than businesses because they need not follow the same rules. While rather irresponsible, it is far from unreasonable for the state to compensate organizations that do the public a greater service than it ever could.

Okay then, why not concede that individual states should be able to pick up - or let down - the slack at will? The Constitution has no recorded power to allocate funds for healthcare services. But according to most readings of the 10th Amendment, the states may do so if they please. The states are laboratories of democracy, and each should be able to choose its path based on the beliefs of its citizens. Let California have unlimited abortions and let Texas restrict them at will. But federal funding is a problem for both ethical and legal reasons.

Miencraft, Narland, The New United States, Republic Of Minerva, The United States Of Patriots, West Smolcasm

Pevvania wrote:The Constitution has no recorded power to allocate funds for healthcare services.

Something something Necessary and Proper

Pevvania wrote:Okay then, why not concede that individual states should be able to pick up - or let down - the slack at will? The Constitution has no recorded power to allocate funds for healthcare services. But according to most readings of the 10th Amendment, the states may do so if they please. The states are laboratories of democracy, and each should be able to choose its path based on the beliefs of its citizens. Let California have unlimited abortions and let Texas restrict them at will. But federal funding is a problem for both ethical and legal reasons.

I suppose that would be a worthy concession; I am a proponent of states' rights and believe that the individual state governments are far more capable and effective in governing their respective constituencies than the federal government is in governing all of them. In fact, voters in my state recently shot down a referendum to defund Planned Parenthood, indicating that they're getting some level of funding from my state's government as well. It would make a lot of sense to delegate matters such as these to the states.

Pevvania, The New United States

I hate catchy choruses and I'm a hypocrite

Hungry hungry hippo-crite

I hate catchy choruses and I'm a hypocrite

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