Post Archive

Region: Libertatem

History

It's Canadas provinces that are in pretty bad shape. Ontario has like 6x more debt that freaking California. British Columbia has housing prices that are jacked through the roof. And it is all due to the liberal party.

Fairbankska

Post self-deleted by Fairbankska.

Post self-deleted by Fairbankska.

Part of the British Columbia problem is that Vancouver has caught pace with San Francisco, nearly tied on the financial centers index for the biggest economic power on the West Coast. Its very dense development due to strict zoning laws don't help, though.

Ontario's debt is all on their government, no other major factor from what I've seen. We can at least blame DC strangling us for ours, which is also worse than California's now.

Census Updated:

Official tally:

Population: 40

Citizens: 24

-Abroad: 5

Active Citizens: 11

Inactive: 13

-Abroad: 5

CTE'd:24

See link in Region WFE

for additional details

Rateria

The United States Of Patriots wrote:Census Updated:

Official tally:

Population: 40

Citizens: 24

-Abroad: 5

Active Citizens: 11

Inactive: 13

-Abroad: 5

CTE'd:24

See link in Region WFE

for additional details

Why do you list "abroad" twice? Citizens that aren't in the region are automatically considered to be inactive citizens.

Disappointing that my boy Danny Glover is a commie pitching for Colonel Sanders, but I just found this great quote he said a while back:

"[On foreign policy] I think the Obama administration has followed the same playbook, to a large extent, almost verbatim, as the Bush administration. I don't see anything different... On the domestic side, look here: What's so clear is that this country from the outset is projecting the interests of wealth and property. Look at the bailout of Wall Street. Why not the bailout of Main Street? He may be just a different face, and that face may happen to be black, and if it were Hillary Clinton, it would happen to be a woman.... But what choices do they have within the structure?"

Can we have a piece of legislation about Mhomen? i have some ideas, but I cant draft for sh!t

Rateria, Condealism

Miencraft wrote:Why do you list "abroad" twice? Citizens that aren't in the region are automatically considered to be inactive citizens.

The "-" is a makeshift indentation. Showing the number of the aforementioned category that citizens abroad account for.

In other words of the 24 citizens 5 are abroad. And of the 13 inactive citizens 5 are citizens abroad.

This would be easier to express if it weren't for NS really stupid inability to indent.

Miencraft wrote:...Citizens that aren't in the region are automatically considered to be inactive citizens.

If you look at the full factbook you will see that that is the case

The United States Of Patriots wrote:The "-" is a makeshift indentation. Showing the number of the aforementioned category that citizens abroad account for.

In other words of the 24 citizens 5 are abroad. And of the 13 inactive citizens 5 are citizens abroad.

This would be easier to express if it weren't for NS really stupid inability to indent.

Well, yes, but I'm saying you don't need to list "abroad" twice. Citizens abroad are by definition inactive citizens, so if there are 5 citizens abroad, obviously there will be 5 inactive citizens abroad too.

It's redundant.

The United States Of Patriots

Going to the country, gonna eat me a lot of peaches

Pevvania, Rateria

Look, I'm happy for the handful of 'libertarian feminists' and egalitarians to take back the word 'feminism'. But just like today's liberals, the use of the word has come to represent an ugly, hateful, fundamentally leftist ideology which we must reckon with. We know that American liberals aren't real liberals, but as long as the general public perceive them by that term, it serves no use saying 'regressive' just as it's useless saying 'radical feminist' (although perhaps third-wave feminist has some accuracy). The mainstream of feminism that publishes the women's magazines, populates the political parties, marches in the streets and bloviate obnoxiously on campuses and internet forums are very much the hateful, radical strain of feminism that we should all oppose. Mainstream feminists (the bad ones) are as big of a threat to our liberties as the Democrats, the neocons, and the radical Islamists, many of whom fall under the same unholy alliance. They all have an agenda and will not stop until our Bill of Rights is gone.

Miencraft, Narland, Fairbankska

I have no real problem with first-wave feminism.

Since then, it's been an overblown and yes, virulently anti-liberty ideology. The current third-wave is actually a mild step up from '70s second-wave stuff, as far as demanding government intrusion and toxic divisive bile are concerned.

Pevvania

Fairbankska wrote:I have no real problem with first-wave feminism.

I am deeply concerned for any person alive today who does. Second-wave feminism, while far more radical and exclusionary, was also a necessary step towards a more egalitarian society. In fact, third-wave feminism was off to a great start because it embraced the concept of intersectionality and promoted individualism (at the time); contrast it to "mainstream feminism" as we know it today - really a vocal minority of feminists who will do anything to be perceived as the mainstream, endlessly repeat the very same talking points that began the third wave more than two decades prior, and use what control over the media they have to stir up division however possible.

But as these sorry remnants of the third wave run riot in the streets, serve as muses for Internet trolls, and cling like ivy to the ivory tower, a far grander and more subtle movement has taken their place. I'd go so far as to say a "fourth wave" has emerged from contemporary online culture, subtly influencing people's interactions on social media, gently fostering a better understanding of social equality and justice (even, if not especially in those who consider those words to have negative connotations), and gradually encroaching on people's comfort in making sexist comments without doing the same to their rights. I'm not even sure whether I should call it a fourth wave of feminism - some take issue with the term "feminism," in part because it has been appropriated by exclusionary radical feminists, and in part because it suggests that this ideology is a women-only kind of deal (which is an exclusionary sentiment in and of itself).

When I call myself a feminist, it's this fourth wave I'm talking about.

Miencraft, Narland, Rateria, Fairbankska

She's lump, she's lump, she's in my head

Great post, Condealism. I have a slight disagreement on the second-wave, since I can't think of anything they achieved that did not involve intrusion on the rights of others or anything positive they demanded that wasn't just a logical extrapolation from the first-wave's goals. Abortion is one area where there's legitimate and honest debate on this, but I believe innocent human life should be protected except in extraneous cases and getting the state in the business of defining when someone transfers from "potential human" to "human" is very dangerous.

However, there definitely does seem to be an emerging "fourth-wave of feminism." Wikipedia's definition of "fourth wave feminism" is basically Buzzfeed-type liberal feminism, some of which I agree with (trans acceptance, legalization of sex work) and some of which I don't (most "call-out culture" and policing language). That's not what you're referring to though, nor is it what I'm noticing, and I'd just say that's a non-radical form of the third wave. What I'm noticing is a growing acceptance that we've reached a point where the harsh measures advocated for by the second and to a lesser degree third waves are only harmful, and that gender-based discrimination is not a one-way street. This is a sort of "back to first-wave" movement if it's to be described as feminism at all, and mostly unintentionally matches up well with the libertarian feminism talked about by figures like Wendy McElroy.

Narland, Condealism

Fairbankska wrote:Great post, Condealism. I have a slight disagreement on the second-wave, since I can't think of anything they achieved that did not involve intrusion on the rights of others or anything positive they demanded that wasn't just a logical extrapolation from the first-wave's goals.

I can think of one example: Marital rape wasn't criminalized in all 50 U.S. states until 1993 (!), and that was a major second-wave topic.

Fairbankska wrote:Abortion is one area where there's legitimate and honest debate on this, but I believe innocent human life should be protected except in extraneous cases and getting the state in the business of defining when someone transfers from "potential human" to "human" is very dangerous.

Agreed, but let's not open that can of worms.

Fairbankska wrote:This is a sort of "back to first-wave" movement if it's to be described as feminism at all, and mostly unintentionally matches up well with the libertarian feminism talked about by figures like Wendy McElroy.

That's a good way of putting it. I support this sort of movement quite greatly because it serves as an excellent reminder that folks are folks.

Fairbankska

Condealism wrote:I can think of one example: Marital rape wasn't criminalized in all 50 U.S. states until 1993 (!), and that was a major second-wave topic.

Okay, that's one good thing they did amidst all the calls to have bureaucrats micromanage hiring practices and the abortion drama, yeah. Marital rape is still rape, no question.

Condealism wrote:That's a good way of putting it. I support this sort of movement quite greatly because it serves as an excellent reminder that folks are folks.

Definitely agreed. I hadn't really put it into words before, but there's always been a huge disconnect between the outlook of most people my age and the kind of thing generally associated with the "feminism" label. Thinking about it as two different waves though, the newer one is super-easy to support.

Miencraft, Narland, Rateria, Condealism

Miencraft wrote:Well, yes, but I'm saying you don't need to list "abroad" twice. Citizens abroad are by definition inactive citizens, so if there are 5 citizens abroad, obviously there will be 5 inactive citizens abroad too.

It's redundant.

Not as redundant as googles recommended search for recursion.

Plus there is no legal definition of what constitutes an inactive citizen.

I listed abroad twice because I like to be able to see all of the parts so I can at a glance find what I'm looking for. A personal preference.

If I where putting this into an essay then I would avoid the extraneous information. Otherwise I just keep it.

It seems it just comes down to differing tastes

Post self-deleted by Miencraft.

The United States Of Patriots wrote:Plus there is no legal definition of what constitutes an inactive citizen.

Check the Constitution; active citizens are defined at the end, and considering there is no specific definition of "inactive" otherwise, anything that doesn't qualify for active is automatically inactive.

*checks register*

Lol, I'm not a citizen

Republic Of Minerva, The United States Of Patriots

So (what will inevitably be called) the Trumpcare plan is out! All I know right now is that it repeals most of the ACA and replaces it with age-based, means-tested tax credits to buy health insurance. Has anyone read it yet?

Just read the rough outline here: https://housegop.leadpages.co/healthcare/

Overall it's looking good. Expands HSAs, block-grants Medicaid and creates an individual tax credit for healthcare, which is arguably a fundamental reform to offset the distorting effect that the employer healthcare tax deduction has had on the market. Only thing missing is a sweeping deregulation of the healthcare market, but hopefully that'll come later.

Narland, Fairbankska

I love The Don but I do not love the amount of vacation time he's taking.

Miencraft wrote:Check the Constitution; active citizens are defined at the end, and considering there is no specific definition of "inactive" otherwise, anything that doesn't qualify for active is automatically inactive.

Ah I missed the " and for all purposes thereafter"

Post self-deleted by Narland.

Post self-deleted by Narland.

Post self-deleted by Narland.

Fairbankska wrote:Boise is pretty libertarian-leaning even now with all the California refugees, but it's culturally always been a border area between the Pacific Northwest and the Rockies, like Western Montana. As much as Alaskans complain about the Seattlfication of the Anchorage area, and as much as we basically stand alone as a culture here in the Interior, we're closer to the PNW than to any other Lower 48 region. Especially the inland, less Californicated parts. The basic traditions, cultural values, and outlook on life match up between the two pretty well. The Rockies share a basic libertarian mentality with the inland PNW, but it just feels a bit more distant to me.
The Jason Lee Pioneers made a wonderful mark on the cultural hearth of Cascadia (East of the Cascades) in spite of the later proto-Marxist style Progressivism that took over. The Inland Empire (West of the Cascades and the Snake River Plateau) had more ruggedly individualist and lawless but just as denominationally diverse than the Cascadians (lots of Wesleyans/Pentecostals, Quakers, Brethren, Seventh Day Adventists, forming a respect for individualism moreso than seen back East. Most independently run (and politically independent as possible communities) do feel like they are standing alone against a monolithic nationalist bureaucratic system ready to borg them into assimilation at any moment. ***strained segway into, "We must all hang together or most surely we will all hang separately." *** The axis for the cultural hearth of the Inland Empire technically ran from Spokane to Phoenix (before mass communication) between the Cascades and the Rockies, but was interposed by the rival Deseret Cultural monopole that has diffused and radiated from Salt Lake into every nook of the once strongly anti-Brighamite sentiments (that can still strongly seen at the edges like Spokane). I wish Boise was still more like Spokane than Salt Lake City but that cultural battle was lost in the 70s.

Idaho's relationship with the FedGov has been that of a red-headed stepchild to an bi-polar ill-tempered Meth addict. When the Calvary came over the hill it wasn't like the Hollywood movies, according to accounts like my great-great grandfather's. Both the Pioneers and the Indians would circle together to protect themselves from them. Ruby Ridge was just another breach amongst dozens that have happened over the course of territorial and state history. This was (until inundated by Californians ignorant of geopolitical differences bringing their culturally dysfunctional baggage) a deep root of strong Libertarian (contractually Federalist/practical anti-Federalist sentiments). If Idaho is a Red-Headed Stepchild, Massachusetts, and New York seem to be Daddy's Little Princesses, and California is his Spoiled but equally indulged Brat. Alaska seems to be the adopted child that the parents want to keep sedated and over-medicated.

My education was mostly pre-Dewey where we had to learn the history of the Old Oregon Country as if we were still one political entity. (Oregon, Washington, Idaho State Histories, Yellowstone/Wind River, Montana West of the Continental Divide, and British Columbia Provincial History)--learning Alaska unfortunately was broken up to Seward, Russia, and Eskimo/Inuit history. Sadly, I know more about BC as a Province than Alaska as a State. Can you see Putin from your house? *<:^}X*** (clown emoji)

Fairbankska wrote:Also, our libertarians got 29% in a federal Senate race just last year, and we usually vote for the libertarian in presidential politics in higher numbers than any other state. ;)
:P

Fairbankska wrote:That sounds like most conservatives here. Though I'm a FairTax supporter rather than a "replace with nothing" supporter, replacing with nothing means either inability to fund national defense or a destructively vast tariff schedule. I'm definitely down for ending the Fed and IRS, sound currency, and if it wouldn't mean an even more cronyist tariff schedule (what most criticism of NAFTA amounts to), ending NAFTA/GATT.
Yeah, tariff run federal gov was a disastrous when applied to the southern states at 35%-50%--there needs to be some sort of check and balance at the state level against tariff abuse--or a constitutional broad tariff fixed at 1.5% with allowances for exemption by the State Legislatures. I am utterly against any payroll tax, and any direct tax upon the otherwise law-abiding citizen that inhibits pursuit of happiness. If we can end the fed and go to open intrinsic currency the property tax locally approved is the best and fairest tax for the states. Receipt of the States tax revenue to the US Treasury through constitutionally authorized taxation by the Federal govt needs to be asserted by each State legislature.

Fairbankska wrote:I do as well, and will do! I love them to bits, they're a completely majestic animal. <3
If we run into any reindeer needing a good home we know whom to call.

The Aradites wrote:As resident Canadian and Quebecois of Libertatem, I'd say to keep your eyes on Maxime Bernier who's running for Conservative leadership. Not-libertarian leaning, but an actual Libertarian.
***Bookmarks it****

Republic Of Minerva wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M689xuNgJyA
I am geographically locked out. My proxy is also blocked. Denial of communication is not what the Internet was designed for.

Fairbankska wrote:I have no real problem with first-wave feminism.

Since then, it's been an overblown and yes, virulently anti-liberty ideology. The current third-wave is actually a mild step up from '70s second-wave stuff, as far as demanding government intrusion and toxic divisive bile are concerned.

Equal standing in law; equal work for equal pay; equal suffrage; equality of person-hood and property, equality of rights priviliges and immunities in civil standing sounds good; Feminism as a Marxist dialectic to create a false dichotomy of suspicion and hatred for political syntheses of statist tyranny in the supposed name of the People (which is de facto the 3% of the Party autocrats) sounds like a scam.

Pevvania wrote:Just read the rough outline here: https://housegop.leadpages.co/healthcare/

Overall it's looking good. Expands HSAs, block-grants Medicaid and creates an individual tax credit for health care, which is arguably a fundamental reform to offset the distorting effect that the employer healthcare tax deduction has had on the market. Only thing missing is a sweeping deregulation of the health care market, but hopefully that'll come later.

I am glad you are optimistic. Don't hold your breath re: true deregulation--you may suffocate. ;)

What I do not understand why people confuse health insurance for health care. Right now, people have to use lawyers to sue their insurer just to get their homes, autos, or medical expenses paid from their Home or Auto insurance policies. Then I think of how bad that will be with Fed Gov micromanaged Health Insurance (in the name of "deregulation") turning it over to some unaccountable bureaucracy as liberals are wont to do. I would like to see the Federal Govt out totally. My relationship between my Physician and myself is ours to bear as a professional charity engaged in the free market (as is its historic right) with myself, my family and perhaps my local community to bear. The free markets adjust so that sufficient care is realized better than any statist interference ever could.

Narland wrote:The Jason Lee Pioneers made a wonderful mark on the cultural hearth of Cascadia (East of the Cascades) in spite of the later proto-Marxist style Progressivism that took over.

There were always strains of it despite the otherwise libertarian ethos, even before the vast Californian migration north in the Klondike rush and later the 1980s. The Populist Party with its weird mix of Scandinavian social democracy and "the socialism of fools" had considerable pull in the Pacific Northwest, it represented farmer interests. This mixed with the later Californians and the actual immigrants from Scandinavia to breed a pretty strong base for that type of politics. It still hasn't won out in Spokane and the Idaho Panhandle from what I've seen, but the Wicked Witch of the West's reach is growing.

For the record, Alaska may be starting to get something similar. There are similarities between that sort of "right-wing social democracy" politics and the Sarah Palin/Bill Walker/Don Young Republicanism that has dominated Alaska ever since Frank Murkowski's Big Oil cronyist regime was overthrown. It's very pro-development in orientation and vaguely "anti-elite" which will be taken to include intrusive bureaucracy, but it's also essentially run by Mat-Su Valley-based labor unions. Their demands unfortunately often strangle the growth they're trying to achieve, Palin's increase of oil taxes was a tremendous mistake that Walker won the governorship on the popular platform of repeating. It's an increase in the dividend at the expense of businesses' willingness to operate here, and pretty much everyone recognizes that Palin doing it was a mistake, so I'm not sure why we voted Walker.

Narland wrote:but just as denominationally diverse than the Cascadians (lots of Wesleyans/Pentecostals, Quakers, Brethren, Seventh Day Adventists, forming a respect for individualism moreso than seen back East.

Here, the individualistic mentality is almost proverbial, it's the first thing usually noted about Alaskan culture. Denominationally, it's mostly been Lutherans, Methodists, and Baptists. There was also considerable migration of Catholics from the Midwest and Seattle, with ancestry from Germany, Poland, and Croatia. We have a large Orthodox population as well, mostly natives in the Southeast and the Aleutians. The early Russian settlers made a concerted effort of converting the Tlingit in particular, that trend and a beautiful old Orthodox church in Sitka are the only remnants of their culture here.

Though despite the national stereotype people seem to have gotten from Palin and funny ideas about people having to be religious to vote Republican, religiosity is actually rare in Alaska outside of East Fairbanks/North Pole and the Mat-Su. I'm a devout Christian, and that's not rare in the area I grew up in, but as a state we have one of the lowest church attendance rates in the country. My own family is ultra-diverse and includes Baptists (mostly devout), Methodists (likewise), Croatian-American Catholics (mostly lapsed), and basically atheistic Jews.

Narland wrote:Most independently run (and politically independent as possible communities) do feel like they are standing alone against a monolithic nationalist bureaucratic system ready to borg them into assimilation at any moment. ***strained segway into, "We must all hang together or most surely we will all hang separately." ***

Sounds like home. :P And totally agreed.

Narland wrote:The axis for the cultural hearth of the Inland Empire technically ran from Spokane to Phoenix (before mass communication) between the Cascades and the Rockies, but was interposed by the rival Deseret Cultural monopole that has diffused and radiated from Salt Lake into every nook of the once strongly anti-Brighamite sentiments (that can still strongly seen at the edges like Spokane). I wish Boise was still more like Spokane than Salt Lake City but that cultural battle was lost in the 70s.

Phoenix is super-weird and seems about midway between Utah and California as a culture, just based on the people I've talked with and seeing it briefly on some of dad's business trips down there. It might as well be another planet to me, though they share some land use concerns with the rest of the Western US, including even California's conservatives. Also, barely related tangential observation, but: everyone outside of it tend to think of "the Southwest" (Arizona and NM) as "those desert states that are pretty much alike," but the dividing line seemed very stark to me. From what admittedly little I saw, NM seemed much more heavily Chicano in culture (I know Nuevomexicanos were a majority for the vast bulk of its history), also its white culture seemed a lot more Texan than Californian or Utahn. Phoenix could pass for San Diego if it voted red, Albuquerque could pass for San Antonio if... well, it already votes blue, but if its state did.

Narland wrote:Alaska seems to be the adopted child that the parents want to keep sedated and over-medicated.

And also don't allow to do anything, up to and including eat.

Narland wrote:Sadly, I know more about BC as a Province than Alaska as a State. Can you see Putin from your house? *<:^}X*** (clown emoji)

Nope. You technically can see Russia from the furthest western Aleutian though.

Narland wrote:If we run into any reindeer needing a good home we know whom to call.

Noted. :P

Phoenix lost its culture to Salt Lake and Southern Ca at least by the 60s from what a cousin (a Goldwater GOP) who lived there lamented. IMHO Arizona is a police state up there with Illinois and NYC. The people and food are great, but I hear the politics is maddening because of the corruption.

I would like to see the 9th Supreme Court Circuit broken up so that [Alaska, Eastern Oregon, Eastern Washington, Idaho and Montana]; [Arizona, Nevada, Utah]; [Western Washington, Western Oregon, Northern California]; and [Central California, Southern California, Hawaii, Guam and Northern Mariana] are in their own respective circuits. FDR ruined the non-politicized increase of the Supreme Court, but logistically it should be up to 21 Justices by now. 3 more for the West, 3 more for the Rockies and Plains, 3 more for the Northeast, and 3 more for the Southeast.

Fairbankska

Post self-deleted by Fairbankska.

[quote=narland;24265957]Phoenix lost its culture to Salt Lake and Southern Ca at least by the 60s from what a cousin (a Goldwater GOP) who lived there lamented. IMHO Arizona is a police state up there with Illinois and NYC.[/quote]

I assume it was sooner than that? Mormons were the earliest settlers in Northern Arizona, and made up some of the first in Phoenix and Tucson as well. Arizona outside of the Gadsen Purchase region was also part of Alta California. Since unlike Texas and New Mexico, that was a very sparse frontier, it doesn't say much culturally. But, Goldwater was famously close with Nixon on a personal level at least, possibly due to similar backgrounds in Phoenix and Whittier respectively.

I'm sure there were some differences, but I'd be surprised if it weren't always associated with those two areas on some level.

[quote=narland;24265957]IMHO Arizona is a police state up there with Illinois and NYC. The people and food are great, but I hear the politics is maddening because of the corruption.[/quote]

I've heard that as well. It's often glossed over, but what I've heard is that Phoenix has a political machine much like the more famous blue-state big city ones. It's also only particularly conservative on border security. On other issues, it really seems like a swing state to me. Phoenix's Republican Party always puts forward super-moderates like McCain, without that it probably would be swing.

[quote=narland;24265957]I would like to see the 9th Supreme Court Circuit broken up so that [Alaska, Eastern Oregon, Eastern Washington, Idaho and Montana]; [Arizona, Nevada, Utah]; [Western Washington, Western Oregon, Northern California]; and [Central California, Southern California, Hawaii, Guam and Northern Mariana] are in their own respective circuits. FDR ruined the non-politicized increase of the Supreme Court, but logistically it should be up to 21 Justices by now. 3 more for the West, 3 more for the Rockies and Plains, 3 more for the Northeast, and 3 more for the Southeast.[/quote]

That makes much more sense on cultural and political grounds.

I would like to see the 9th Supreme Court Circuit broken up so that [Alaska, Eastern Oregon, Eastern Washington, Idaho and Montana]; [Arizona, Nevada, Utah]; [Western Washington, Western Oregon, Northern California]; and [Central California, Southern California, Hawaii, Guam and Northern Mariana] are in their own respective circuits. FDR ruined the non-politicized increase of the Supreme Court, but logistically it should be up to 21 Justices by now. 3 more for the West, 3 more for the Rockies and Plains, 3 more for the Northeast, and 3 more for the Southeast. [/quote]

As far as being similar to Spokane yes that deviated early on. The loss of the general culture as distinctly its own (as apposed to an amalgam of California and Utah interests) as far as conservative politics with a libertarian bent (for those who considered themselves Conservative.) was lost to Phoenix when Goldwater lost the national election back in the 60s (again according to a cousin who was Arizonan GOP). Nixon was supposed to be Goldwater's protoge nationally, but Nixon betrayed him for globalist interests ala Kissinger and Quiggley. Reagan (as original campaign promises go) and Ron Paul seem a more fitting legacy to Goldwater than Nixon or McCain. I have noticed that over the years the UT/LDS interests and that if the Military Industrial Complex have become so intertwined that their unique para-Conservatism is indistinguishable from each other. Yet another reason that I did not trust Romney.

Post self-deleted by Fairbankska.

Mormons often seem very sedate and non-combative in their presentation, which lends itself to only quietly challenging whatever the prevailing status quo is. They're also disproportionately represented in the intelligence community, which is an intertwining of those interests you talked about. Though they do usually make up the right of it, and respect for the Constitution is a religious requirement for good Mormons. The John Birch Society, for all its occasionally weird theories, was also disproportionately Mormon and the left isn't wrong that many of the JBS' more explicitly Mormon eschatology-derived ideas filtered into the Tea Party via Glenn Beck.

With regard to Goldwater's legacy, I definitely agree that McCain was in no sense his legitimate protege ideologically, though they were friendly on a personal level. Reagan was deeply influenced by Goldwater's worldview, and his presidency minus the War on Drugs expansion is probably roughly what you would have gotten with President Goldwater. I wouldn't say Paul is quite in the tradition of Goldwater because his foreign policy, while leaps and bounds better than neoconservatism, often rests on a basic assumption that outside geopolitics will not impact America that Goldwater would not have shared. Rand is honestly closer to Goldwater in ideology, though not in basic instinct since he isn't as much of a fighter. Cruz largely matches, a few social issues aside.

Reluctant Paul support -> even more reluctant Santorum backing -> still more reluctant Romney endorsement for me in 2012. I was 16 and couldn't vote, I probably would have voted Johnson. He hadn't veered as much off into "let's win moderate Democrats" territory yet, so that wouldn't have really been reluctant.

Forget the tax credits in the healthcare bill, the real scandal is that four Republican Senators are refusing to support it if it stops the unconstitutional expansion of the unconstitutional and deadly Medicaid program. Sick of these disgusting RINOs trashing the party as they've been doing for the past twenty-odd years. At the next election cycle we need to primary these fools and get 'em out of office

The Senators:

Rob Portman of Ohio

Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia

Lisa Murkowski of Alaska

Cory Gardner of Colorado.

Miencraft, Condealism, Fairbankska

We tried with Murky, we really did. But the Democrats bailed on their candidate to vote for her write-in campaign. ;_;

Then we tried again by running Joe Miller, the guy who primaried her, as a Libertarian six years later. Unfortunately he'd gone somewhat deep into fever swamp territory in many of his campaign statements, in a desperate effort to keep his Palin-ite support. This made him an alienating figure, not helpful when he already was running third party.

Narland wrote: My relationship between my Physician and myself is ours to bear as a professional charity engaged in the free market (as is its historic right) with myself, my family and perhaps my local community to bear. The free markets adjust so that sufficient care is realized better than any statist interference ever could.

It's better to be insured.

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2009/09/new-study-finds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-to-lack-of-health-coverage/

Another pathetic UK Conservative budget. Deficit is up, spending is up, taxes are essentially up. Terrible. It sucks in the UK because there's not even a libertarian option on the ballot, so we just have to cross our fingers and hope that our Tory overlords will reduce the size of government, which almost never happens. Any one of the alternatives is a no go. Every election simply asks the question of what speed the government is to grow at. Without a constitution, spending money on anything is considered perfectly legitimate.

Fairbankska

Post self-deleted by Narland.

Post self-deleted by Narland.

Post self-deleted by Narland.

Post self-deleted by Narland.

Cyborgs And Sentient Machines wrote:It's better to be insured.

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2009/09/new-study-finds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-to-lack-of-health-coverage/

The article confuses payment of a health insurer to actual real life access to healthcare without consideration of what to do when your insurer thinks you do not merit seeing a physician--you must then get a lawyer and have the money to sue. Not a good option for the poor.

These are beneficial to bureaucrats and crony capitalists at the expense of everyone else with the typical attitude that they know best. Two of the studies cited does not take into account dominant paradigms of difference between the mindsets of the indigent (generally avoid doctors and perceived authority figures); underclass (go to the emergency room), working poor (find a treatment on your own), middle class (have my employer take care of the responsibility for medical care and complain to some politician when the doomed to failure indolence finds fruition), upper middle class (generally a good fit for insurance) affluent classes (come here son, I would like you to meet our family physician--if you are ill give him a call)--which must be taken care of through Education and Practice (not an easy task with the wholesale dumbing-down of our current educratic system seeking to conform children to sociological norming outcomes rather than elucidation to self-governance by classical education.

The two studies cited assumes that the wealth distribution scheme is superior to free market, and the third does not take into account where insurance is mutually beneficial to both the insurer and the recipient in a truly free market. Of course statist government must get out of the way to return to such a state, but that another topic. Insurance mutually benefits the the 2nd and 4th percentiles by giving one peace of mind (an accountant for ones medical expenses), and the other a reverse lottery to pay for what could not be otherwise afforded. If the insurance is mandatory, the mean paying for extraneous overhead that would best be spent directly to the physicians. Free market charities pay 95-100% on the dollar (if they are worth their salt). Bureaucracies pay out 5-15% on the dollar (even the most efficient), and Insurers pay out less the cost to pay their actuaries, agents, lights and heating.

When this is a mutually consensual contractual agreement between two responsible adults to pay a third responsible adult, I wish them the best of luck. When this is foisted on the taxpayer with forced participation that interferes with the right to freedom of conscience, the right to freedom of association, the right to pursuit of happiness, and the right to be the party of the first part to any contractual obligation freely by one's own consent, the right not to incriminate oneself, the right to keep the fruit of my own labor, the right not be coerced or defrauded: This is not care this is fraud, larceny and tyranny.

I haven't seen you posting here for a while. WB.

Pevvania wrote:Another pathetic UK Conservative budget. Deficit is up, spending is up, taxes are essentially up. Terrible. It sucks in the UK because there's not even a libertarian option on the ballot, so we just have to cross our fingers and hope that our Tory overlords will reduce the size of government, which almost never happens. Any one of the alternatives is a no go. Every election simply asks the question of what speed the government is to grow at. Without a constitution, spending money on anything is considered perfectly legitimate.

The thing is, people don't go into politics to shrink the state, they go into politics to grow it. Playing politics is hardly a suitable option.

Pevvania, Narland

Republic Of Minerva wrote:The thing is, people don't go into politics to shrink the state, they go into politics to grow it. Playing politics is hardly a suitable option.

Yeah but it feels good stopping my commie friends and their retarded idols from seeing political power again.

Narland, Shirayuki Mizore

Another good video from Vegan Gains about the barbarism of Islam -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBMU1O4qe8k&t=126s

He's right that essentially every counter-argument from Muslims when you call out their religion for its deplorable, regressive practices, their go-to response is "dude read the Quran in Arabic the English version is a mistranslation".

That's essentially answering centuries of authoritarian, psychopathic extremism and its adherents with "it's just a prank bro"

Miencraft, Narland, Fairbankska

Narland wrote:-snip-

I probably don't know much about how a charity healthcare system to work to say that it is bad or anything like that, all I know that it would be highly efficient.

What I don't know however is how ''powerful'' (for the lack of a better word) they are.

For all I know they are like ion engines, sure ion engines are super efficient compared to chemical rockets, but they aren't getting you to the moon and back, if you could show me some resources to allow me to learn more, I would be delighted.

If people truly had any respect for cops, they'd strip nude for them at every traffic stop. Just to prove that they are carrying no contraband or weapons on their person.

We should also elect to get RFID chips in our license plates that actively link to government sponsored insurance companies bill pay systems, just to make sure we are not at risk of driving with no insurance.

...I have gone from Civil Rights Lovefest, to Anarchy, to Corporate Bordello, to Inoffensive Centrist Democracy, and now Left-Leaning College State. All in the span of barely over a week.

*dons hipster glasses* I'm like. Beyond labels. Labels are too mainstream.

Miencraft, Narland, Republic Of Minerva, Rateria, Condealism, The United States Of Patriots

Capitalizt is where it's at.

Fairbankska wrote:...I have gone from Civil Rights Lovefest, to Anarchy, to Corporate Bordello, to Inoffensive Centrist Democracy, and now Left-Leaning College State. All in the span of barely over a week.

*dons hipster glasses* I'm like. Beyond labels. Labels are too mainstream.

Welcome to NationStates.

Pevvania, Condealism, The United States Of Patriots, Shirayuki Mizore, Fairbankska

Post self-deleted by Narland.

Cyborgs And Sentient Machines wrote:I probably don't know much about how a charity healthcare system to work to say that it is bad or anything like that, all I know that it would be highly efficient.

What I don't know however is how ''powerful'' (for the lack of a better word) they are.

For all I know they are like ion engines, sure ion engines are super efficient compared to chemical rockets, but they aren't getting you to the moon and back, if you could show me some resources to allow me to learn more, I would be delighted.

This is the book I had as a kid on the matter:

https://www.amazon.com/Propulsion-Space-Flight-Ernst-Stuhlinger/dp/B0000CM8P7

This will catch you up to last decade:

http://descanso.jpl.nasa.gov/SciTechBook/series1/Goebel__cmprsd_opt.pdf

For the little kids:

http://academickids.com/encyclopedia/index.php/Ion_thruster

If Mhomen returns, I vow to make him Supreme Leader for life of Libertatem

Muh Roads, Condealism

The Aradites wrote:If Mhomen returns, I vow to make him Supreme Leader for life of Libertatem

Oh no, not again!

*flahback of your prophecy intensifies*

Condealism

Hey there, I am the Executive Minister of The International Debating Area, I see our embassy construction has finished. If you're keen on debating you can subscribe to our foreign newspaper, The Debating Times. Right now, our elections are underway!!!

Remember, don't forget to hop on over, debate, and win yourself a Debating Award:)

Pevvania, Rateria, Condealism

Fairbankska wrote:Mormons often seem very sedate and non-combative in their presentation, which lends itself to only quietly challenging whatever the prevailing status quo is. They're also disproportionately represented in the intelligence community, which is an intertwining of those interests you talked about. Though they do usually make up the right of it, and respect for the Constitution is a religious requirement for good Mormons. The John Birch Society, for all its occasionally weird theories, was also disproportionately Mormon and the left isn't wrong that many of the JBS' more explicitly Mormon eschatology-derived ideas filtered into the Tea Party via Glenn Beck.
I was a teenage card carrying member of the JBS (late 70s-early 80s). Our cell and leg was mostly Presbyterian and other mainline denoms (with a few secular humanists)--a reflexive defense from the preponderance of the implicit but incessant Salt Lake Temple LDS eschatology that God will use their church (alone) to save and restore the Constitution from everyone else. It just needs that 4th Priestly branch to be perfect.

Fairbankska wrote:With regard to Goldwater's legacy, I definitely agree that McCain was in no sense his legitimate protege ideologically, though they were friendly on a personal level. Reagan was deeply influenced by Goldwater's worldview, and his presidency minus the War on Drugs expansion is probably roughly what you would have gotten with President Goldwater. I wouldn't say Paul is quite in the tradition of Goldwater because his foreign policy, while leaps and bounds better than neoconservatism, often rests on a basic assumption that outside geopolitics will not impact America that Goldwater would not have shared. Rand is honestly closer to Goldwater in ideology, though not in basic instinct since he isn't as much of a fighter. Cruz largely matches, a few social issues aside.

Reluctant Paul support -> even more reluctant Santorum backing -> still more reluctant Romney endorsement for me in 2012. I was 16 and couldn't vote, I probably would have voted Johnson. He hadn't veered as much off into "let's win moderate Democrats" territory yet, so that wouldn't have really been reluctant.

What i loved about Ron Paul was his strict Federalist view from a consistent Objective Realist philosophical perspective as Social Contract. Since we share the same philosophy (as an actual philosophy not an anti-philosophy as is taught in most American universities), it is easy to know where he was coming from to be a cheerleader for him. Unfortunately he did not come across as well on camera as in person. His base temperament and personality can come across as "dweebish" to most snowflakes.

To Ron Paul he Federal Gov was to do only 17 things specifically authorized by the Constitution from from an Originalist perspective--which Libertarians, Constitutionalists, Libertarians, Paleo-Conservatives, Classical Liberals, and even many Paleo-Liberals can agree in general (and argue over the specifics later). His plan for our military was nearly identical to Reagan's--its just that Reagan was a better communicator. The elitist media of the 80s made Reagan sound like a psychopathic warmonger and he embraced it to his advantage. The elitist media of the 00s tried to make Paul sound like a dimwitted milquetoast too cowardly to fight and too goof-ball to be "presidential." Reagan too, shut down all of our bases that were non-essential (outside of NATO and other tight treaties), pulled our troops home from around the world, untangle the MIC from the actual military, and update our military to be a lean and efficient deterrent for world peace.

Pevvania wrote:Another good video from Vegan Gains about the barbarism of Islam -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBMU1O4qe8k&t=126s

He's right that essentially every counter-argument from Muslims when you call out their religion for its deplorable, regressive practices, their go-to response is "dude read the Quran in Arabic the English version is a mistranslation".

That's essentially answering centuries of authoritarian, psychopathic extremism and its adherents with "it's just a prank bro"

I used to hand this book out like candy. The ethics of one forms the basis of Western Civ, and the ethics of the other Islamic Civ. There is virtually nothing in common regarding the meaning of truth, justice, and peace betwixt the two.

https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Muhammad-Differences-Surprising-Similarities/dp/1591852919

Republic Of Minerva wrote:Capitalizt is where it's at.

I am stuck as a Civil Rights Lovefest and cannot seem to get the questions necessary to get out.

Pevvania

The Aradites wrote:If Mhomen returns, I vow to make him Supreme Leader for life of Libertatem

Who the hell is in charge here?

Mhomen is Libertatem's Kamina.

Condealism wrote:Who the hell is in charge here?

The humor of asking that in a room full of Libertarians cannot be overstated. :)

Miencraft, Rateria, Condealism, Fairbankska

The song I put up is an official favorite of mine. :)

DON'T TREAD ON ME

Rateria, Fairbankska

Post self-deleted by Fairbankska.

Post self-deleted by Fairbankska.

Narland wrote:To Ron Paul he Federal Gov was to do only 17 things specifically authorized by the Constitution from from an Originalist perspective--which Libertarians, Constitutionalists, Libertarians, Paleo-Conservatives, Classical Liberals, and even many Paleo-Liberals can agree in general (and argue over the specifics later). His plan for our military was nearly identical to Reagan's--its just that Reagan was a better communicator.

I agree with your praise of his originalism, but not entirely that their foreign policies were the same. Reagan advocated for cutting unhelpful bloat and continuing diplomatic engagement with rival states, while maintaining a strong and firm military defense that engages carefully when it is in the national interest of the United States. This is indistinguishable from Rand Paul's foreign policy, if he had a stronger backbone as a person. Unfortunately Ron Paul on occasion seemed to believe there were no threats worth commenting on, as if this were still the 1920s and we didn't have the global position we do today. He advocated for immediate withdrawal from Iraq, where I think the Obama administration's failure to establish a basing agreement helped create the conditions for ISIS.

His later support for the Iran deal is also weird to me since I don't really trust Iran's claims that their nuclear program is purely for energy, between the Ayatollah's declassified past support for a nuclear weapons program (he publicly lied about finding it "religiously abhorrent" then too) and public statements regarding Israel. This frees them to accumulate enriched uranium supposedly for "peaceful" purposes, with that accumulation they can just break the deal's terms and start expanding their weapons infrastructure. I fear they'll probably nuclearize regardless, but I definitely don't want to make it easier and help it come faster. I believe long-term that their nuclearization will lead to extremely dangerous proliferation throughout the Middle East. Turkey will want one to secure themselves against their centuries-long rival, the only thing holding Saudi Arabia back would be threatening their aid budget.

There are many good parts of the Ron Paul foreign policy. Libya, like most overthrow efforts of secular Middle Eastern despots, was a disaster that Paul would not have engaged in. Reforming our contracting system away from the "favored company" model established in WWII, and back to actual bidding, is essential to cut costs and improve quality. Reducing foreign aid to Israel would also unshackle their military technological dependence on the US, freeing them more clearly to deal with Iran. I think the criticism that Paul veered beyond realism and occasionally into naivete is legitimate, though.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:The song I put up is an official favorite of mine. :)

DON'T TREAD ON ME

Metallicaaaa!!! <3

Republic Of Minerva

Fairbankska wrote:I agree with your praise of his originalism, but not entirely that their foreign policies were the same. Reagan advocated for cutting unhelpful bloat and continuing diplomatic engagement with rival states, while maintaining a strong and firm military defense that engages carefully when it is in the national interest of the United States. This is indistinguishable from Rand Paul's foreign policy, if he had a stronger backbone as a person. Unfortunately Ron Paul on occasion seemed to believe there were no threats worth commenting on, as if this were still the 1920s and we didn't have the global position we do today. He advocated for immediate withdrawal from Iraq, where I think the Obama administration's failure to establish a basing agreement helped create the conditions for ISIS.
This was in part to force Congress's hand to take responsibility or their Constitutional Duty to declare war. My preference would have been to do like we did with Germany and Japan--win decisively in such a way that even the most stiff-necked of them admitted defeat; hand them a Constitution (we could give them ours since we aren't really using it); make them choose a body of Common Law; then give them 10 years to make Freedom of Conscience, Religion, Association, and equality under the law irrespective of race, creed, or sex work or we turn them into a parking lot. There was a really good tri-state Federal Constitution ready but for some reason instead of acting like Americans, the gov decided to act like globalist boogerheads.

Fairbankska wrote:His later support for the Iran deal is also weird to me since I don't really trust Iran's claims that their nuclear program is purely for energy, between the Ayatollah's declassified past support for a nuclear weapons program (he publicly lied about finding it "religiously abhorrent" then too) and public statements regarding Israel. This frees them to accumulate enriched uranium supposedly for "peaceful" purposes, with that accumulation they can just break the deal's terms and start expanding their weapons infrastructure. I fear they'll probably nuclearize regardless, but I definitely don't want to make it easier and help it come faster. I believe long-term that their nuclearization will lead to extremely dangerous proliferation throughout the Middle East. Turkey will want one to secure themselves against their centuries-long rival, the only thing holding Saudi Arabia back would be threatening their aid budget.
I do not get that either, other than that he has been out of the Congressional loop.

Fairbankska wrote:There are many good parts of the Ron Paul foreign policy. Libya, like most overthrow efforts of secular Middle Eastern despots, was a disaster that Paul would not have engaged in. Reforming our contracting system away from the "favored company" model established in WWII, and back to actual bidding, is essential to cut costs and improve quality. Reducing foreign aid to Israel would also unshackle their military technological dependence on the US, freeing them more clearly to deal with Iran. I think the criticism that Paul veered beyond realism and occasionally into naivete is legitimate, though.

Re: Iran deal, yes that one is befuddling. However forcing Congress to be the Congress regarding foreign policy (especially the Senate) and war (especially the House) with the President as the Ambassador-at-Large of the several States to the rest of the World, and as the Commander-in-Chief (a term that directly means Commandant of Physical Infrastructure and Logistics (in today's parlance)) and he is Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces only when in a declared War by Congress. He is not ever to be a Field Marshall (or Chief Commander when not at war) as Hawks seem to want.

Fairbankska wrote:Metallicaaaa!!! <3
Is that like Johnny Horton? :P

Ron Paul isn't perfect by any means, but he had a lot of good ideas, more so than the bad, and unrealistic ones.

Pevvania, Republic Of Minerva, Rateria, Fairbankska

Narland wrote:This was in part to force Congress's hand to take responsibility or their Constitutional Duty to declare war.

Sure, but the war had already been raging for six years. I wouldn't have gone in, I think it was the most disastrous foreign policy blunder in recent American history. I also agree with Paul that if we were to go in, the legislature should have authorized it as is their responsibility. Restoring that tradition would add some small measure of accountability to our foreign policy, since it's easier to petition your Congressman than the President.

Once we were there though, it was in our security interest to ensure that what was left behind was stable so that the destabilization wouldn't bite us in the behind. Instead, what was left behind was a weak government with little effective control of the western edges in Iraq (a basing agreement would have allayed this), which was pretty quickly replaced by renewed civil war. Then renewed terrorist insurgency throughout the Middle East and spreading into the West, exactly as Obama's critics at the time predicted. Ron Paul, unfortunately, opposed pushing for a basing agreement and like the administration didn't seem to understand the risks that would bring.

Narland wrote:My preference would have been to do like we did with Germany and Japan--win decisively in such a way that even the most stiff-necked of them admitted defeat; hand them a Constitution (we could give them ours since we aren't really using it); make them choose a body of Common Law; then give them 10 years to make Freedom of Conscience, Religion, Association, and equality under the law irrespective of race, creed, or sex work or we turn them into a parking lot.

I hope that would work, but Germany and Japan had already had about a century's worth of post-feudal liberalization when we de-fascified them. The widespread desire to emulate the West and modern economic infrastructure which made it possible were already there. I fear these changes in the Middle East will have to come at a slower pace, rulers who liberalize too quickly like the Shah tend to end up overthrown in Islamist backlash. While Jordan are to be condemned for their security services continuously looking the other way at Palestinian suicide bombers, Kings Abdullah I and Hussein of Jordan show a good model to follow here. Steady liberalization tempered by a Burkean caution, ruthless suppression of Islamist revolt.

Narland wrote:Is that like Johnny Horton? :P

Actually, on Load and ReLoad (which are mostly awful but anyway), Metallica tossed in some definite country influences.

The closest to Johnny Horton that my playlist comes, though, is... Uncle Tupelo, Drive-By Truckers, Wilco. Country-tinged indie rock is my favorite genre in the history of ever.

Narland

Post self-deleted by Narland.

Post self-deleted by Narland.

I am enjoying these conversations. When at University we (other students) would sit around at coffee shops and have all-night round table discussions. I miss them greatly. Thank you for the ripostes and parries.

Fairbankska wrote:Sure, but the war had already been raging for six years. I wouldn't have gone in, I think it was the most disastrous foreign policy blunder in recent American history. I also agree with Paul that if we were to go in, the legislature should have authorized it as is their responsibility. Restoring that tradition would add some small measure of accountability to our foreign policy, since it's easier to petition your Congressman than the President.
Definitely

Fairbankska wrote:Once we were there though, it was in our security interest to ensure that what was left behind was stable so that the destabilization wouldn't bite us in the behind. Instead, what was left behind was a weak government with little effective control of the western edges in Iraq (a basing agreement would have allayed this), which was pretty quickly replaced by renewed civil war. Then renewed terrorist insurgency throughout the Middle East and spreading into the West, exactly as Obama's critics at the time predicted. Ron Paul, unfortunately, opposed pushing for a basing agreement and like the administration didn't seem to understand the risks that would bring.
Yes, I did have issue with that re: Congressman Paul. Disestablishing the Military Industrial Complex from the table should have been a fight for later, and being at loggerheads for a misapplying "entangling alliances" is regrettable. War should not be declared lightly, and when waged it should be fierce, brutal, decisive and short (within the bounds of Just War Doctrine should go without saying as Americans).

Fairbankska wrote:I hope that would work, but Germany and Japan had already had about a century's worth of post-feudal liberalization when we de-fascified them. The widespread desire to emulate the West and modern economic infrastructure which made it possible were already there. I fear these changes in the Middle East will have to come at a slower pace, rulers who liberalize too quickly like the Shah tend to end up overthrown in Islamist backlash. While Jordan are to be condemned for their security services continuously looking the other way at Palestinian suicide bombers, Kings Abdullah I and Hussein of Jordan show a good model to follow here. Steady liberalization tempered by a Burkean caution, ruthless suppression of Islamist revolt.
The Germans had 40 years of secularization and "democratization"--indoctrination into socialism from their public school system. The indoctrination of the Weimer Republicans was intense, and their transition into barbarism well documented. In general, the Germans never did learn from it (Bismark to Hitler), and even now refuse to teach their children the evils of Socialist thought that crippled Germany for decades and brought Hitler to power. We were able to appeal to their humanity after the war, but even as our troops were advancing on Berlin most Germans thought they were free. That should make any sane person shudder.

The Japanese had even less exposure to the West (and much of the exposure they had was not from those of us who had their best intentions in mind) than the Middle East does today with internet and mass communicaitons. We made one concession in the Constitution of Japan, (the clemency of Hiro Hito) it seems to have worked out well. The Japanese Empire was replaced with a Federal Constitutional Monarchy and (I cannot remember if they choose Hessian, Brennen, or Bavarian) Common Law. They had no experience with either, but they made it work.

I more chalk up the failure of the restoration of Persia to betrayal by the Progressives in our midst--The Legislative, Executive, and Judiciary at the time were filled with Democratic Liberals (and Moderate(ly Socialist) Republicans who countenanced their hatred and self-loathing for our heritage, culture, and power on a daily basis--not to mention their disdain for our role in helping westernize Iran. The globalists amongst us aided the Iranian revolutionaries by doing IMNSHO the most cravenly despicable thing possible--nothing. There are many people in Muslim dominated lands that yearn for liberty and freedom, and are willing to pay the price to see it enshrined in their lands--even if that means forswearing allegiance to Muhammedism. Dong so for Iraq when we had the chance was outside the paradigm for globalists for ever president we have had after Reagan save Trump.

Fairbankska wrote:Actually, on Load and ReLoad (which are mostly awful but anyway), Metallica tossed in some definite country influences.

The closest to Johnny Horton that my playlist comes, though, is... Uncle Tupelo, Drive-By Truckers, Wilco. Country-tinged indie rock is my favorite genre in the history of ever.

Johnny Horton had a couple of hits about Alaska (Springtime In Alaska; North to Alaska)--it is hard to relay subtleties over text. I am weird in that I like Western, but hate Country unless it is Folk. I hate Country wedded with Pop almost as much as I dislike 70s American Disco, and cannot fathom Gangsta Rap. A lot of alternate country is Western in the traditional sense--over half of Uncle Tupelo enjoyable to these ears. I'll take Johnny Cash over Slim Whitman most every time.

Most other genres I enjoy if they are well composed and somewhat original--I hate formulaic parroting of groups or songs. The tracks in my car jump from Punk to Gospel to Hard Rock to Swing to Opera to Poetry Readings. I love songs with wit, satire, and parody--Weird Al (most), Frank Zappa, Tom Lehrer, Mike Church, etc. I am currently tracking down songs written by and/or performed by Tonio K.

Shonen Knife, The Ramones, Undercover, Rez Band, Talbot Brothers, Steely Dan, Kansas, Movie Soundtracks (like Elmer Bernsteins) and Johnny Cash were some of my favorites growing up. And I had to have Rush 2112 for some reason. After my head injury (recently) I could only listen to jazz (without getting migraines) and got to like some of Postmodern Jukebox.

Narland wrote:I am enjoying these conversations. When at University we (other students) would sit around at coffee shops and have all-night round table discussions. I miss them greatly. Thank you for the ripostes and parries.

You're welcome. :) I'm enjoying this as well.

Narland wrote:and being at loggerheads for a misapplying "entangling alliances" is regrettable.

Very, but I think it's a necessary criticism. The libertarian movement does often have an issue with tunnel vision, particularly on international affairs, where fighting the American state is the be-all and end-all of what's in the American peoples' interest. This occasionally reaches tragicomic extremes, like in Justin Raimondo's "everything every enemy of the United States says is true and we're the evil empire who should have been conquered by Japan" columns.

Narland wrote:War should not be declared lightly, and when waged it should be fierce, brutal, decisive and short (within the bounds of Just War Doctrine should go without saying as Americans).

Completely, unequivocally agreed. I pretty much loathe Congressman Don Young, but one good idea he had was to institute a (small so as to not actively incentivize it) mandated wartime tax, just so the American people feel explicit financial burden from war. To encourage caution about any gung-ho sentiment to enter, so the decision will be given more of the careful weight it deserves. Right now we're in a post-Iraq lull of skepticism, but the historical record shows this isn't the norm.

Narland wrote:The Germans had 40 years of secularization and "democratization"

It had been growing at rapid pace since shortly before the revolution of 1848. It didn't start with Bismarck, he simply fused it to the interests of the imperial Prussian junker bureaucracy half a century later. In some ways this was just giving official legitimacy the trend the German Enlightenment had already been taking in Prussia since its beginning though, Hegel would have been very proud. Austria's/Bavaria's situation was much better, and Bismarck weakened this flowering of thought in the Catholic section of Germany.

In Japan's case, it pretty much did start with Emperor Meiji, but with his reign's beginning in the 1860s that constitutes 80 years of Western emulation. Even Japanese fascism was an attempt at combining previous feudal norms with the Meiji-era Westernization policies, a fusion still extant to some degree in Japan's zaibatsu cartel system.

Narland wrote:We made one concession in the Constitution of Japan, (the clemency of Hiro Hito) it seems to have worked out well. The Japanese Empire was replaced with a Federal Constitutional Monarchy and (I cannot remember if they choose Hessian, Brennen, or Bavarian) Common Law. They had no experience with either, but they made it work.

My concern would be that the Emperor's statements de-legitimizing his own divine status is what removed the religious fervor from traditional Japanese culture, without which they quickly Westernized in most areas. You simply had to break the state's will such that the one person at the top surrendered. Islam has no such mechanism, it operates on a system as precedential and unbending as canon or rabbinical law, and with many more strictures on everything ranging from church set-up to farming practices than either system.

Narland wrote:The globalists amongst us aided the Iranian revolutionaries by doing IMNSHO the most cravenly despicable thing possible--nothing.

Carter's inaction definitely didn't help, but the Ayatollah's popularity was vast. Explicit boots on the ground would have looked to Iranians like an invasion and possibly just bolstered the Islamist forces, as the botched rescue mission during the hostage crisis a few years later did. Sending in Special Forces to aid Iran's military probably should have been done, though.

I also would put part of the blame at the Shah's feet. His joining OPEC and playing with oil prices to the detriment of his American allies was biting the hand that fed him, and provoked understandable spiteful inaction when his regime was collapsing. I also think his dynasty would still be in power today if he had conducted his regime more like the ruling family of Jordan, in a slower campaign of Westernization, rather than the overnight pace throwing caution to the wind that he was driving toward.

Narland wrote:There are many people in Muslim dominated lands that yearn for liberty and freedom, and are willing to pay the price to see it enshrined in their lands--even if that means forswearing allegiance to Muhammedism.

Unfortunately, there seem to be many more who will vote for Islamists. This is what the elections in Iraq, Egypt, Palestine, Afghanistan, Iran, Turkey, even the very Westernized and relatively liberal country of Tunisia have bred. Those who seek the liberties seen in America are mostly the young, especially educated youth. These are the future of the Middle East, but they aren't yet the majority.

Narland wrote:Johnny Horton had a couple of hits about Alaska (Springtime In Alaska; North to Alaska)--it is hard to relay subtleties over text.

Oh, I gotcha now. I'm surprised I missed that, actually. :P Springtime In Alaska is sort of an anthem around here.

Narland wrote:I hate Country wedded with Pop

I grew up on Shania Twain, and was a teenage Swiftie. So, I can't say I share that. I still maintain Taylor Swift did not deserve most the criticism she got back then. You Belong With Me is an awesomely catchy song, Speak Now is a genuinely mature and well-written album. Love Song is... yeah, okay, that one is hard to defend.

[

Narland wrote:A lot of alternate country is Western in the traditional sense--over half of Uncle Tupelo enjoyable to these ears.

There's often a bluegrass tinge to alternative country, I've noticed. It's probably especially prominent with local bands here, since the folk music is also all bluegrass-tinged. Including near-official state bard, Hobo Jim.

Narland wrote:I'll take Johnny Cash over Slim Whitman most every time.

I also grew up on Johnny Cash and love his music to bits. I had to look Slim Whitman, and he has the most tremendously irritating falsetto I've ever heard. That was painful to listen to.

Narland wrote:And I had to have Rush 2112 for some reason. After my head injury (recently) I could only listen to jazz (without getting migraines) and got to like some of Postmodern Jukebox.

Postmodern Jukebox have some major talent, and I adore Rush. I know it's an unofficial libertarian commandment to love Rush, but in my case it's more "my dad is a huge '70s prog-rock fan."

Great discussion dudes. I'll join in when I can read all of it when I've left work.

Also, I want to make an early prediction that Neil Gorsuch will get confirmed handily by the Senate. So far, he doesn't seem to have any known skeletons in his closet, except for a fascist club he made as a joke in college, has a clean record, a great philosophy and the charisma to defend himself.

If Democrats unite against him, they'd be shooting themselves in the foot because the GOP could easily just use the nuclear option to confirm him, which opens the door to having conservative jurists even more hated by the left getting confirmed when the liberal hags currently on the court die. And Schumer would be powerless to stop them.

The United States Of Patriots, Fairbankska

I identify as a Vietnam War veteran

I get flashbacks from COD Black Ops 3 every night

US government give me vets' healthcare and benefits or I sue for discrimination

so what if I was born in 1996

Narland wrote:This is the book I had as a kid on the matter:

https://www.amazon.com/Propulsion-Space-Flight-Ernst-Stuhlinger/dp/B0000CM8P7

This will catch you up to last decade:

http://descanso.jpl.nasa.gov/SciTechBook/series1/Goebel__cmprsd_opt.pdf

For the little kids:

http://academickids.com/encyclopedia/index.php/Ion_thruster

I was referring to charities when I requested recourses btw, the ion engine was just an analogy.

Pevvania wrote:I identify as a Vietnam War veteran

I get flashbacks from COD Black Ops 3 every night

US government give me vets' healthcare and benefits or I sue for discrimination

so what if I was born in 1996

Have you been reading my diary again?

Pevvania, Rateria

Black Ops 2 was the last good COD.

Pevvania

Condealism wrote:Black Ops 2 was the last good COD.

Finally someone who agrees with me!

Condealism

I liked the zombie mode in 3. :(

Fairbankska wrote:I liked the zombie mode in 3. :(

I haven't played 3 very much tbh. Last COD game I bought was Advanced Warfare, and it wasn't too bad. Just got tired of the same old, same old gameplay.

I miss BlOpsII. I was so hyped when I got my first and only ninja defuse, I loved racking up multiple kills with a shotgun, and I still remember that time me and a bunch of unskilled randos went up against the FaZe clan - they wiped the floor with my teammates, but I kept wrecking them with joke weapons while they tried to make their final kill a 720 quickscope or some shiz.

Pevvania

I'm more of an Overwatch player. I don't play COD, but I've seen a ton of memes about Infinite Warfare and how the fan base hates it.

Most people preferred Infinite Warfare to BlOpsIII, actually. The story and gameplay were seen as an improvement, though again zombie mode was the best part.

In Overwatch, D.Va and Widowmaker > all.

Rateria

Fairbankska wrote:Most people preferred Infinite Warfare to BlOpsIII, actually. The story and gameplay were seen as an improvement, though again zombie mode was the best part.

In Overwatch, D.Va and Widowmaker > all.

Don't make me camp your spawn as Bastion! In all seriousness though, I'm more of a Lúcio main, mostly due to the fact that almost no one else goes as a healer.

Fairbankska

Post self-deleted by Fairbankska.

I hate Bastion so much. Go-to annoying kiddie hero.

Very few people seem to play as Widowmaker, and I've gotten complaints for picking her before. I completely understand it, most of her players just spam bodyshot which isn't that helpful. Unlike my other go-to (ever-popular tank/DPS hybrid D.Va), she's not newbie-friendly in the slightest, leading everyone to just write her off as useless. Fortunately, I usually prove those wrong because I'm actually good at sniping. Boom, headshot! :D

Lucio is an awesome speedbooster.

Rateria

Fairbankska wrote:I hate Bastion so much. Go-to annoying kiddie hero.

Very few people seem to play as Widowmaker, and I've gotten complaints for picking her before. I completely understand it, most of her players just spam bodyshot which isn't that helpful. Unlike my other go-to (ever-popular tank/DPS hybrid D.Va), she's not newbie-friendly in the slightest, leading everyone to just write her off as useless. Fortunately, I usually prove those wrong because I'm actually good at sniping. Boom, headshot! :D

Lucio is an awesome speedbooster.

Unfortunately for you, I happen to main Bastion and Soldier 76 as well as Lúcio. Oddly enough, I'm having trouble with adapting to Bastion's alteration. The thing about me with Lúcio is that I generally choose him by necessity. My main tactic as him is to speed boost to the objective, then turn on healing so we can stand our ground.

+1 for battlefield.

Pevvania, The United States Of Patriots

Muh Roads wrote:+1 for battlefield.

Battlefield 4 was the last FPS I truly enjoyed. Nothing I've tried since has held up.

Condealism wrote:Battlefield 4 was the last FPS I truly enjoyed. Nothing I've tried since has held up.

I take it you haven't played Battlefield 1?

Pevvania wrote:I take it you haven't played Battlefield 1?

That I have not.

Post self-deleted by Fairbankska.

Rateria wrote:Unfortunately for you, I happen to main Bastion and Soldier 76 as well as Lúcio.

Ew, Bastion kiddie. I hope you don't just spawn camp with him? Or worse, I hope you aren't one of those people who just uses Soldier 76 to close-range spray?

Rateria wrote:Oddly enough, I'm having trouble with adapting to Bastion's alteration.

I had trouble with the D.Va nerf for a bit too, she's no longer ridiculously overpowered. I could get the hang of it pretty quickly, but charging out alone as an unstoppable mech of doom wasn't a viable option anymore.

Rateria

Fairbankska wrote:Ew, Bastion kiddie. I hope you don't just spawn camp with him?

I admit to spawn camping as Bastion, but Pre-buff, I used his Recon mode constantly, but as I said previously, I don't use him as much.

Fairbankska wrote:Or worse, I hope you aren't one of those people who just uses Soldier 76 to close-range spray?

I tend to stay farther back for my own safety, especially with all of those Reapers and Roadhogs hitting me at close range.

Fairbankska wrote:

I had trouble with the D.Va nerf for a bit too, she's no longer ridiculously overpowered. I could get the hang of it pretty quickly, but charging out alone as an unstoppable mech of doom wasn't a viable option anymore.

In certain scenarios as Lúcio, I tend to stay around tanks such as D.Va and Reinhardt. They provide me with cover, while I in turn provide fire support and healing.

Fairbankska

What was American healthcare like before Obamacare?

Cyborgs And Sentient Machines wrote:What was American healthcare like before Obamacare?

Aside from being slightly cheaper, less of a burden on the federal budget, far less likely to cause employers to drop their benefit packages, not at all tied to crash-prone websites, and non-compulsory? (And less available to layabouts, I suppose.) Not terribly different.

Cyborgs And Sentient Machines wrote:What was American healthcare like before Obamacare?

Sttill expensive, but far less bureaucratic.

Condealism

Condealism wrote:Aside from being slightly cheaper, less of a burden on the federal budget, far less likely to cause employers to drop their benefit packages, not at all tied to crash-prone websites, and non-compulsory? (And less available to layabouts, I suppose.) Not terribly different.

I've heard that the prices always go up.

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