Post Archive
Region: Libertatem
Like Hollis!
It shows that you have strong influence.. Lol
Have you heard from Con? I wanted to ask him how I should feel about it, but I can't seem to find him.
*adjusts glasses* Also, have you seen my glasses?
I'm disappointed, Fascism. You were beginning to intrigue me with the idea that Reagan was some kind of unifying political figure on the right. Bug instead you've showed yourself up as just another jaded leftist. Shame.
Most of what you stated was either a raging ad hominem or a flat-out lie. But I encourage all of you to read what an angry leftist who has let his rage cloud the facts looks like - because once I get some sleep, I'll demolish him.
Who's on your list? I think I'd like to see Rokita as Governor.
Go Pevv!! *prepares chili and cheese for event*
Oh, well I suppose it'd help to refresh the page before I post.
What do you think about Hollis?
I have to be honest, I haven't heard much about her. I don't pay the closest attention to the state GOP, although maybe I should. I found her website and looked over her platform, which looks like a solid platform.
She mentioned a possibility once. I personally don't think she would do it but it would be pretty great if she did.
I want Smith to do it. I worked for him last fall. But he would never.
We seem to have been getting attention from other regions that some of the things we do are contradictory to libertarianism. These people don't seem to realise that NationStates is a game. Need I say more?
Yeah, I think it's probably too early for other hopefuls to really come forward. Pence is such a long shot for President that I just don't see him not being Governor again. I think we'll start to see people shuffle around and actually show interest when Pence's term comes to an end.
Actually, yes, you do, considering the fact that they are not aware this is only a game indicates that they will not be able to comprehend what you've just said.
Definitely, definitely.
For example, the War on Communism. I sometimes get a little flak over this, which is strange. In real life, I am generally opposed to neoconservative escapades, as are most of us in the region. But the war is totally consistent with RL libertarianism because a) the Bolsheviks were the ones to initiate force, b) it's a game, and c) it's fun as hell. I feel that the commies take things way too seriously in this game.
Or our apparent "obsession with the Constitution and legalism" in the words of everyone's favourite state propaganda machine. Libertatem, people forget, is a private entity, hence the executive power and there being a Board of Directors. Every company has rules.
So apparently the NYPD is refusing to write tickets and summonses for minor offenses in the wake of the execution of Officer Rafael Ramos and Officer Wenjian Lu because of how crap De Blasio is.
On one hand, screw De Blasio, but on the other... isn't this basically a strike? And if people realize that the cops aren't going to do anything about minor issues and "petty" crimes skyrocket, isn't that going to cause even bigger problems? I've already heard that people are jumping turnstiles in the subways without even a sideways glance, and people are parking illegally in Times Square.
What if one of those cars parked illegally has a bomb in it and the NYPD doesn't notice because of this? I know it's a horrific idea, but... man. I just don't think that the police stopping policing is a good idea.
Speaking of which, we really should take a look at our old rulebook - I mean Constitution - and update it so that it's consistent with contemporary company policy.
Really, Pev?
REALLY?
REALLY?
*jumps out window*
Dude's been out of America for most of his life. Give him a break.
Durn foreigners
It seems Hoosiers have a very weak sense of sarcasm.
Hmm.
Looking around, it seems that the communists are better at destroying themselves then we are at destroying them.
Perhaps, if this continues, we can call an end to the war on tyranny and live out our days with the knowledge that, like the Soviet Union, communism doesn't work and eventually collapses on itself.
*polishes 20 gauge*
You wanna rethink that? Maybe take something back? Hmh? Maybe that we be a good idea?
Goshdern Hoosiers.
Way to go, buddy. It took me three days to make that military policy.
*shakes fist* Three days!
Haha.
*proceeds to polish 20 gauge*
You better watch it, Mr. President! I might just change my vote to "He's the worst president we've had"! :P
That "Way to go, buddy" reminds me of Boris from Archer, which coincidentally comes back tomorrow.
Oh no. Don't do that. Then I'd be ruined. Aah.
I was paraphrasing a different, more juvenile cartoon.
Wait, I take that back. I was paraphrasing an equally juvenile cartoon.
If I wasn't angry at you, that'd be funny.
Watch your mouth about Hoosiers. I will throw so much corn at you, you won't be able to breath.
I think you've got more to worry about from Humph. Although "Here lies Conservative Idealism, the Worst President We Ever Had" would be a pretty depressing epitaph.
Archer isn't juvenile! Except for the wee baby Seamus.
No. Please. I need to breath. Aah.
How dare you assume I'm not immortal! :P
God, my out of state friends give me so much s**t about the corn. It doesn't help that you don't even have to get five words into our state song to get to "cornfields."
Indiana may be flat and corn-filled, and it may not have as much to do as other states, but I'll be damned if it's not full of some of the nicest people and a great place to live. Having several top-tier universities in-state doesn't hurt.
Hell, the parts of Missouri that aren't St. Louis are practically completely corn - I'm surprised no one makes corny jokes about us.
My favorite insult:
"Indiana, you have to get through us to go somewhere better!"
Ooh, I was mad.
All of the Midwestern states are given that motto by the people on either coast. *sigh*
I could have sworn that you were from like Michigan or something.
I'm from the east coast and Indiana sounds like paradise.
I suppose that's true if you're escaping Bloomington.
I'm happy to see anyone who calls us "flyover states" keep to themselves on the coasts.
I'm from NY and would rather live in the middle of a corn field.
So I guess Indiana is a good place to start.
Nope, I'm a stone's throw away from the meth capital of the world. Surprise.
Darn straight.
The biggest city that we have is like a 1/3 the size of NYC. I know about 75% of the people that live in a 15 mile radius. It's a great typical small town State.
The Indiana Caucus grows...
I know .5% of the people in a 15 mile radius.
Sometimes I think I know someone, but it turns out to be someone else.
Welcome to New Jersey.
We have one of the lowest tax burdens and we have such a large Republican majority in the legislature that we can only go more in the right direction.
If it weren't for the earthquakes, I'd probably move to Texas instead.
Mmhmm Texas.
My couch is open to everyone.
Is it a Freudian couch? I've always wanted one, even though I'm probably not going to become a psychologist.
You don't live in Newark, do you? Only place I. NJ I've been to. I really hope you don't live in Newark.
I didn't care too much for Texas when I visited. Seemed like it was trying way too hard to be the "big" state. I dunno.
If I couldn't live in Indiana, I think I'd choose Oklahoma. It's a surprisingly beautiful state.
A Freudian couch? Does that mean a "Freudian slip" is a piece of psychological underwear? :P
That depends - did you mean to say underwear, or was that a Freudian slip?
For the Commies who like to lurk: Indiana also has New Harmony. One of the only tests of communism in a real life situation that was not eastern Europe. It's worth noting that it failed almost immediately, but we still had it.
I live near Newark.
.....
Boo!
I can do this all day
I'm sorry.
That's accurate. #NewYorker
I said Massachusetts...he's everywhere. Don't even try.
I know at least 50% #RichBurbs
That's accurate.
New Jersey's a turd.
^
#JeSuisCharlie
All the social media...but Ya, that's unfortunate.
*sees one vote for "He's the worst President we've ever had"*
I have detractors! Yesss!
*one detractor*
*your chief of staff*
Well, technically, since you haven't done anything yet, you're automatically worse than the rest of us that actually did things.
Eh, I'll still take it.
Even the one guy before Lone Star whose name I can't remember?
Post self-deleted by Miencraft.
Well, except maybe that guy.
At least you lasted longer.
I think. Did you? I don't even remember that far back on account of how I wasn't here.
Also, I have a tendency to refer to things that are currently happening in past tense.
But I've been here for almost three years now so I think people have figured that out by now.
*cries* The UCR has changed so much.
*pats back* It's okay, I miss it too.
I remember the most fun I had on Nationstates is when I liberated the UCR with my fellow Chernobylite's [nation=Lawless Idealism], [nation=New Midwestern America], [nation=Apocolyptia Britania], [nation=Linkazonia], [nation=Ankha] and [nation=Jewphobia]. Only half of those nations stand today.
May those nations we've lost rest in peace. I never had comrades, in the left-leaning sense, before I became a citizen of the ol' UCR.
http://www.boston.com/news/history/2015/01/06/mfa-opens-the-paul-revere-sam-adams-time-capsule/GEaLDlor2a77iSil1OiX0K/story.html
This is incredibly cool! A time capsule from 20 years after America's independence. Boston has so much wealth of history. I visited Boston when I was in Massachusetts a couple of years ago, in sort of a whirlwind trip. I only had a little bit of time during one day, so I was only able to see the Old State House and the New England Holocaust Memorial, but both were very much worth the out-of-the-way visit.
So Probably the weirdest movie I ever watched was Tommy. Finally got around to seeing it, and it is just weird as hell.
Tommy Boy, on the other hand, is great.
That it is.
Does NationStates have a brake pad industry?
I agree Tommy Boy was a good one. I mean I am a Who fan and I thought this should be good, and this is one of the most bizarre things I have ever seen.
I had the same thought when I watched Pink Floyd's The Wall. Syd Barrett wasn't the only crazy one in that group.
The Album was okay, but that was another bizarre one as well.
Apparently they used real neo nazi skinheads for the rally scene and didn't know what to do once they were all riled up.
I guess that what happens when drugs are in the mix
*Looks at conversation and realizes he is the third most cultured in Libertatem*
Good ol times. (Cuz I had all the power. Muwahahaha!!)
Post self-deleted by Funkytopia.
He's already gotten started. Anyway, I'll add him to the list of my extended cabinet - I'm calling it the sink.
I'm also appointing [nation=Shermaniya II] as my deputy in the position of Associate Diplomat for Libertatem. He'll be heading to AAA to help out with our effort there.
Post self-deleted by The Neo-Confederate States Of America.
My country is considered a Conservative Paradise and i love it!!!!
That's nice, Albul.
How on Earth do they determine best weather anyway?
I do try. I get my training in libertarian propaganda-spreading straight from the Koch Brothers.
Winning the Cold War takes a little more than tough talk. But I'll get to his record on spending below.
Stop lying. Between 1980 and 1989, income tax receipts increased by 78%, from $308 billion to $549 billion as a result of economic expansion. General federal revenues similarly increased by 70%. Where can this information be found? Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan
You really haven't done much research into this, have you?
It's not a "conservative myth"; it is a supply-side observation accepted by most economists. Just about every serious economist recognises that tax cuts stimulate the economy, and when the economy is growing, so are government revenues. Seriously, it's basic economics. Please, take a class in it or read a book or something, because your fiscal ignorance is killing me.
The deficits of the 1980s came primarily from the disappearance of inflation, which was a major revenue-getter in the 70s. Secondly, it was Congress's atrocious record on spending which I'll discuss below.
Yeah, this was bad. He increased the payroll tax by 0.86%.
That's a complete straw man argument. Historically, the budget of the DVA/Veterans' Administration rises and falls in accordance with the number of veterans in need of financial assistance. For example, it rose during the 70s after the Vietnam War, but declined in the 80s, then rose again after the Gulf War. From Wikipedia: "The Department of Veterans Affairs was created due to nearly one third of the population being eligible for veterans benefits. Its proponents argued that due to the large number of Americans affected by the VA, it needed an administrator who had direct access to the president."
The DVA Act was merely a reorganisation of the VA into a cabinet-level position that could be overseen better. Between 1981 and 1989, the VA budget declined from $56 billion to $53 billion. After the DVA was created, its budget had risen to $59 billion by 2001. Oh my, Ronald Reagan? Reorganising a cabinet-level department?! What a socialist! http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/charts/
Another flat-out lie. The mujahideen was a coalition of militant groups that shared a common goal: overthrowing the Soviet occupation. Maybe you just see them all as "stoopid vilent muslims", but no, not every Afghan that doesn't want to live under socialism is a terrorist. Your claim about Bin Laden is another whopping lie. He arrived on the scene in 1988, and started Al-Qaeda as a mujahideen foreign training group. To this day there is still not a grain of evidence that Bin Laden was ever funded by the CIA. The CIA only funded indigenous Arabs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA%E2%80%93al-Qaeda_controversy
"U.S. government officials and a number of other parties maintain that the U.S. supported only the indigenous Afghan mujahideen. They deny that the CIA or other American officials had contact with the Afghan Arabs (foreign mujahideen) or Bin Laden, let alone armed, trained, coached or indoctrinated them. Scholars and reporters have called the idea of CIA-backed Afghan Arabs (foreign mujahideen) "nonsense", "sheer fantasy", and "simply a folk myth."
They argue that:
-with a quarter of a million local Afghans willing to fight there was no need to recruit foreigners unfamiliar with the local language, customs or lay of the land
-with several hundred million dollars a year in funding from non-American, Muslim sources, Arab Afghans themselves would have no need for American funds
-Americans could not train mujahideen because Pakistani officials would not allow more than a handful of U.S. agents to operate in Pakistan and none in Afghanistan;
-the Afghan Arabs were militant Islamists, reflexively hostile to Westerners, and prone to threaten or attack Westerners even though they knew the Westerners were helping the mujahideen."
No he wasn't. He was actually very intelligent man, which has been acknowledged by his friends, his enemies, and other world leaders.
You seem to hold the view that any anti-communist organisation is evil, and all socialist regimes are saintly and good. The complete opposite is true. Dos Santos, Ortega, Castro, Bishop, Ghadaffi - they were all socialist tyrants with blood on their hands. Reagan was truly heroic to give aid to the forces of freedom abroad. I despise neoconservatism, but sponsoring liberation movements in Latin America, Africa and other exploited parts of the world is alright in my book.
Well, actually, he remained very much in the public spotlight, doing speeches, meeting with world leaders and speaking at the RNC in 1992. Please, stop lying. Dishonesty gives me headaches.
Public* unions. Actually, just one public union: PATCO in 1981.
The Contras did bad stuff, but at least they didn't attempt to start a genocide against an entire race of people. The Sandinistas were brutal, socialist, murderous thugs that had to be stopped any way possible. But that's okay, right? As long as they were funded by the USSR and fighting for communism, it's alright to massacre, imprison and torture thousands of people?
What the hell are you talking about?
He does not have a great record on spending. But much of this is due to a non-compliant Congress. Between 1982 and 1983, President Reagan proposed and sent to Congress:
-a bill that would abolish the Department of Education,
-a bill that would abolish the Department of Energy,
-a bill that would privatise vast swathes of federal land in the West,
-a bill converting Medicaid into a block grant program,
-a proposed federal spending freeze (proposed numerous times during his Presidency),
-a balanced budget Constitutional amendment.
The first three made no headway in Congress, but the Medicare proposal actually passed the Senate, but was rejected by the House. The balanced budget amendment actually passed both chambers of Congress - but fell ten votes short of the needed 2/3 majority in the House.
It's also worth noting that Congress overspent Reagan's budget requests during every single year of his Presidency: http://www.ipi.org/docLib/reagandf.pdf-OpenElement.pdf
Reagan made budget proposals based on what he believed he could get out of Congress, so purely taking his requests into account, let's take a look at what federal second-term deficits would have been if Congress had passed his budgets:
1986 PROPOSED REAGAN DEFICIT: -$205 billion, -4.5% of GDP
1987 PROPOSED REAGAN DEFICIT: -$140 billion, -2.92% of GDP
1988 PROPOSED REAGAN DEFICIT: -$115 billion, -2.22% of GDP
1989 PROPOSED REAGAN DEFICIT: -$104 billion, -1.8% of GDP
1990 BASELINE REAGAN DEFICIT: -$51 billion, -0.875% of GDP
1991 BASELINE REAGAN DEFICIT: +$3 billion, +0.05% of GDP
These are all in 1996 dollars.
There would have been a balanced budget in 1991, assuming future budgets would have followed the same baseline. Even if Congress had followed the baseline of actual deficit reductions between 1985 and 1989, a balanced budget would have been reached in 1994 - four years before Clinton accomplished it.
Now, let's look at the deficits and the spending record if all of the above proposals had been accepted. In fiscal year 1983, federal outlays accounted for $1.52 trillion, while tax revenues accounted for $1.12 trillion, so there was a deficit of $387 billion, or -5.9% of GDP. In Reagan's budget request, in 2015 dollars, he submitted a $1.45 trillion budget, which would have meant a deficit of -$319 billion. Factoring in Reagan's land privatisation proposal, which would have raised $44 billion in federal revenues between 1982 and 1986, according to the Budget Office. So that's an average of $8.8 billion in extra revenue. So the deficit would have gone down to -$311 billion. Knocking off the Departments of Education and Energy would have cut spending from $1.450 trillion in that year to $1.4 trillion, or -$46 billion. The Medicaid reforms would have cut another $45 billion. Rejected deferrals and rescissions also would have saved $10 billion. Deficit's now -$210 billion, spending at $1.344 trillion. If Congress had gone with Reagan's proposal, on top of these, to freeze spending, and assuming spending would not increase above inflation for the rest of the 80s, the US federal budget would have been in balance by 1987, and would only need $30 billion worth of further cuts to get it into balance by 1986. And needless to say, Congress came within ten votes of securing a balanced budget forever.
http://federal-budget.findthebest.com/compare/83-84-85-86-87-88-89-90-91-92/1980-vs-1981-vs-1982-vs-1983-vs-1984-vs-1985-vs-1986-vs-1987-vs-1988-vs-1989
So the reality is far more complex than you're letting on. Lies, straw man arguments and blind rejections of the facts are a great way to cope with an inconvenient truth, but unfortunately, they do not wash in the real world. Ronald Reagan was a good, kind, strong man that restored American greatness in the midst of a crushing economic and spiritual depression. He confronted Communism abroad, overthrowing numerous regimes and replacing them with democracies infused with classical liberal principles. His intelligence and strategic wit caused the demise of the USSR and the birth of freedom in dozens of countries. Militarily, he was a very restrained President, and condemned the neoconservatives in his administration and in Congress that urged him to go to war with other nations. At home, he led the most sweeping change in national economic policy since the Great Depression. His agenda was highly ambitious, and left many goals un-achieved. But he used his Presidency to accomplish a hell of a lot of good: the abolition of price controls, deregulation, across-the-board reductions in the tax burden, frozen growth of corporate welfare, introduction of more private services in Medicaid, the replacement of government housing with housing vouchers, the abolition of the Fairness Doctrine, the reduction in domestic spending as a percentage of GDP from 14% to 11%, nearly all federal agency budgets cut (http://www.aei.org/publication/president-reagan-champion-budget-cutter/), the introduction of the gold price rule, disappearance of inflation, restrained monetary policy, the break-up of the telephone monopolies, the creation of the World Trade Organisation and the Uruguay Round, inspiring the creation of NAFTA. He had his hands tied by a split and then a Democratic Congress, but he still managed to make progress that no President had made in half a century. He was a conservative, but deserves the admiration from libertarians for all that he accomplished.
How you handle the environment and pollution issues.
Ah. I thought that's what it might be.
Jesus, it's cold!
I think He already knew that.
Go Pevv
Ha....... ha.....................................................ha
1 bad login attempt. I sincerely hope that was an honest mistake.
Assembled with Dot's Region Saver.
Written by Refuge Isle.