Post Archive

Region: Libertatem

History

Narland wrote:Marxist as with most variants of socialism are the ultimate cuckoo-cloudlanders. Marxism fails as a theory and it fails in practice. That any can become apolitical utopians by impairing the obligation of contract (in all things economic) of two mutually consenting adults for a supposedly perceived greater good that defies the human condition would be laughable if if the face of reality millions of people did not end up being murdered in the process.

The new man never rises out of the ashes of the "bourgeois" insurrection that destroys the fabric of society--it is always the old tyrant strong man in the guise of the beneficent Great Leader/(s)/-ship for the Cause of the People that does. When the tyranny fails--which cannot but do, contingencies are made and scapegoats are found (for Marx cannot be followed whole cloth without utterly destroying itself). They (Marxist ideologues) never look in the mirror, or into their soul--they always project it onto other people or other things.

God forbid (irony of ironies) it couldn't be because their ideology is out of touch with reality, for they have the best of intentions--just read their writings!. Those who truly keep only what they need and fork over everything they got are the ones in danger of starving to death when the economy fails (Just look at Venezuela). Those who complain too loudly end up in the internment/labour/death camps or if the Marxists are in a hurry the killing fields.

The incredulous statement that nobody has tried it flies in the face of history and the 10s of millions of murdered that beg otherwise. It has been tried many times and found wanting. It fails as promised every single time.

(I tried to simplify the grammar and shorten the post but do not have the time)

I've read the Communist Manifesto for school, and while even after reading the Manifesto I have my disagreements with communism as an ideology, I think history has shown that communism has been tried and failed, as shown by the fact that every time it is tried, it quickly devolves into something distinctly un-Marxist. Marx himself wanted a communist society to be both stateless and classless, and basically all communist societies (with the possible exception of the short-lived anarchist regions of Revolutionary Catalonia and the Free Territory of Ukraine) have not only failed in both those regards, but have gone in the complete opposite direction, with not only the government being overly-powerful and centralized, but the leadership of the state being far richer and prosperous than the rest of the people. Regardless of the possible merits of communism in theory, as a whole, communism is basically impossible to implement, and I don't think a true communist society can ever exist.

Rateria

Maybe we do need to do something against these dirty reds. I'll be busy raising an army under the ACA's new system of government.

New Jaslandia wrote:I've read the Communist Manifesto for school, and while even after reading the Manifesto I have my disagreements with communism as an ideology, I think history has shown that communism has been tried and failed, as shown by the fact that every time it is tried, it quickly devolves into something distinctly un-Marxist. Marx himself wanted a communist society to be both stateless and classless, and basically all communist societies (with the possible exception of the short-lived anarchist regions of Revolutionary Catalonia and the Free Territory of Ukraine) have not only failed in both those regards, but have gone in the complete opposite direction, with not only the government being overly-powerful and centralized, but the leadership of the state being far richer and prosperous than the rest of the people. Regardless of the possible merits of communism in theory, as a whole, communism is basically impossible to implement, and I don't think a true communist society can ever exist.

The only place where Marxism worked was in Anarchist Spain, but we quickly saw the flaws in that.

New Jaslandia, Rateria

Nationstates is so bias against free market capitalism

Parvimperia

The United States Of Patriots wrote:Nationstates is so bias against free market capitalism

I agree.

Las-Vegas wrote:Well most fascists aren't Nazis...

Yeah, it works beautifully. Who wouldn't want to be taxed at 70% and forced to do whatever the government says while the government controls every aspect of your damn life?

And also, what world do you live in where people don't argue that these programs are bad? Stonedville? Highasfcukland? Welfare? San Francisco?

Who is getting taxed at 70%?????

If you look at the office taxes online on the IRS.gov website, to look at tax brackets, you would see that no one is paying that much to the government, not even people who make more than $10,000,000 is paying that much.

The United States Of Patriots wrote:Nationstates is so bias against free market capitalism

Why?

Post self-deleted by Miencraft.

"15 hours ago: Miencraft was ranked in the Top 1% of the world for Most Extensive Civil Rights."

Party at my place.

New Jaslandia, Rateria

On March 23 1775 Patrick Henry uttered these words "Give me liberty or give me death".

Even now when our system of politics seems like a broken record. And a candidates main selling point is that they are not the other candidate. It is important to recognized what we where blessed to be given. Let us look forward with optimism, courage, and most importantly reverence toward our the great gift we have been given.

Here is his full speech

"MR. PRESIDENT: No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do, opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely, and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The question before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfil the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offence, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the majesty of heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years, to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves, and the House? Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with these war-like preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled, that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask, gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us; they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done, to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne. In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free² if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending²if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained, we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of Hosts is all that is left us!

They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance, by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations; and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable²and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace²but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!​"​

Miencraft, New Jaslandia, Kumquat Cove, Rateria

The United States Of Patriots wrote:Nationstates is so bias against free market capitalism

Nationstates' creator is a right-wing Libertarian though.

Rotgeheim wrote:"Jede Kontakt zum rücken Fallschirmjäger ist abgebrochen."

I don't know how helpful they would have been during the Battle of Berlin anyway.

Throwback Thursday! (1 year, 256 days ago)

San Andrias wrote:Nationstates' creator is a right-wing Libertarian though.

no he isn't you numbskull

Rateria, Shirayuki Mizore

San Andrias wrote:Nationstates' creator is a right-wing Libertarian though.

??????

San Andrias wrote:Nationstates' creator is a right-wing Libertarian though.

He's a liberal.

Patvarus Ii wrote:He's a liberal.

*"social" liberal that is

Republic Of Minerva wrote:*"social" liberal that is

Right

Good Girl Gone Bad Reloaded or Rated R

Which one do y'all use more?

Republic Of Minerva wrote:no he isn't you numbskull

Ok dude. Sorry.

Republic Of Minerva

San Andrias wrote:Ok dude. Sorry.

better be

Regional Community News: Issue #20 Superheros and Sexbangs!

http://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=578372

Archive: http://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=505134

Saw Batman V Superman, I know it's getting a lot of hate but I thought it was a good. I do have one complaint... LEX LUTHOR WAS AN OBNOXIOUS F*CK

Right-Winged Nation wrote:Saw Batman V Superman, I know it's getting a lot of hate but I thought it was a good. I do have one complaint... LEX LUTHOR WAS AN OBNOXIOUS F*CK

My brother said pretty much the same thing after he saw it with his friends. I'm surprised, considering I had zero hope for that movie.

Post self-deleted by Narland.

I had zero hope for it also. It might as well have been Manman vs Superbat, but it was a little better than expected. I would see it at the $1 Theatre, but it wasnt worth the $10 at the Big Box Theatre.

bruh u guys never acknowledge my posts on the message board

Dangerously in Love vs B'Day

I am Sasha Fierce vs 4

or

Beyonce vs 4

Post self-deleted by Narland.

Post self-deleted by Narland.

Sorry, I do not participate in pop culture enolugh to have an informed opinion re: your post.

(I cannot speak for Libertatem) but I do like to try to dialogue.

I have an opinion on Superman vs Batman: I think it is sad a media form (graphic novels) that until recently was relatively free from Hollywood/Madison Ave/Disneyfication has now been noticed and exploited by such groups to promote their cultural marxism in an ironically commercially expoitative way. I would have much rather seen an intelligent (philosophically coherent) interpretation of the original Action Comics presents Superman Versus Batman than what I saw at the movies.

Don't know much about Beyonce.

Apparently legalizing same-sex marriage hurt my pizza industry. Okay.

New Jaslandia, Rateria, Teuberland

Parvimperia wrote:Apparently legalizing same-sex marriage hurt my pizza industry. Okay.

Obviously gays don't like pizza. Duh.

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

Narland wrote:Sorry, I do not participate in pop culture enolugh to have an informed opinion re: your post.

(I cannot speak for Libertatem) but I do like to try to dialogue.

I have an opinion on Superman vs Batman: I think it is sad a media form (graphic novels) that until recently was relatively free from Hollywood/Madison Ave/Disneyfication has now been noticed and exploited by such groups to promote their cultural marxism in an ironically commercially expoitative way. I would have much rather seen an intelligent (philosophically coherent) interpretation of the original Action Comics presents Superman Versus Batman than what I saw at the movies.

Don't know much about Beyonce.

"Snyder clarified that the film would not be based on the graphic novel. 'If you were going to do that, you would need a different Superman. We're bringing Batman into the universe that now this Superman lives in.'"

I don't think the movie has anything to do with "cultural marxism". If you see a conspiracy in every action movie you should take a step back.

New Jaslandia

Parvimperia wrote:Apparently legalizing same-sex marriage hurt my pizza industry. Okay.

I actually had the same thing happen recently, and wondered the same...

How strange, right?

Parvimperia

Parvimperia wrote:Apparently legalizing same-sex marriage hurt my pizza industry. Okay.

Maybe the pizza makers are closing down their businesses so they don't have to serve same-sex weddings? There's been a similar controversy in America, so it would make sense.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/01/indiana-pizza-gay-couples_n_6985208.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/court-ruling-colorado-baker-refused-gay-wedding-cake/

Parvimperia, The United States Of Patriots

Plusiocratic Federation Of Monetia wrote:"Snyder clarified that the film would not be based on the graphic novel. 'If you were going to do that, you would need a different Superman. We're bringing Batman into the universe that now this Superman lives in.'"

I don't think the movie has anything to do with "cultural marxism". If you see a conspiracy in every action movie you should take a step back.

Sorry, i wrote 3 paragraphs and then redacted it down to a few sentences. The cultural marxism comment was meant for the Hollywood mentality in general, not the movie in particular. The movie was ok, but not great, and definitely not the same Superman of Action Comics.

Coumba wrote:bruh u guys never acknowledge my posts on the message board

Acknowledged

Rateria, Parvimperia

Coumba wrote:bruh u guys never acknowledge my posts on the message board

Maybe it's because you say "bruh"

Miencraft, New Jaslandia, Rateria, The United States Of Patriots, Shirayuki Mizore

Humpheria wrote:Das cool bruh

The first "bruh" in Libertatem.

New Jaslandia, Rateria

By instituting work projects to protect eroding coastlines, my economy rose 133%. I kinda justified it in the protecting of private property, but I'm starting to think "eh, that's not a government thing." What do you guys think?

Teuberland wrote:By instituting work projects to protect eroding coastlines, my economy rose 133%. I kinda justified it in the protecting of private property, but I'm starting to think "eh, that's not a government thing." What do you guys think?

It's not necessarily a government thing. Very little has to be. But this is NS and you aren't always afforded the luxury of rational choices.

Remember: streakers control the weather and not banning sweets means your citizens will eat nothing but.

Miencraft, New Jaslandia, Rateria, Teuberland, Parvimperia

Shirayuki Mizore wrote:It's not necessarily a government thing. Very little has to be. But this is NS and you aren't always afforded the luxury of rational choices.

Remember: streakers control the weather and not banning sweets means your citizens will eat nothing but.

If streakers control the weather what do nudists do?

*shudders*

Rateria, Parvimperia

Teuberland wrote:By instituting work projects to protect eroding coastlines, my economy rose 133%. I kinda justified it in the protecting of private property, but I'm starting to think "eh, that's not a government thing." What do you guys think?

Nation States comes with a pronounced left wing slant. The game is rigged to favor public spending when in reality it doesn't work.

Miencraft, Republic Of Minerva, Rateria, Teuberland, Parvimperia

Back when cars were big hunks of metal, with some rubber and cloth, some communities used them as river bank erosion control. I used to sit on the top old Fraizier Manhattan in the Missoula river to fish. Today the EPA would have an aneurism.

The old conservation groups (not the radicalized post-1960s ones) were all about teaching the individuals and family businesses how to conserve the soil, and what means and methods in a community were readily available to do so. Somehting happened in the 1970s where they started acting more like marxist shills and using government grants to force political change.

Ack! When did i start sounding like my grandfather?!

Miencraft, The Ambassador To The Clfr, Rateria

The Ambassador To The Clfr wrote:Nation States comes with a pronounced left wing slant. The game is rigged to favor public spending when in reality it doesn't work.

It has something to do with the weird way taxation is simulated, too. You can have above 100% income tax and no one complains. The nation just keep getting bonuses without any penalties.

New Jaslandia, Republic Of Minerva, The Ambassador To The Clfr, Rateria

Narland turned into a Corporate Bordello just for givng tax cuts accross the board to corporations. You would think the more government taxes corps the more of an incentive there would be for corps to get into bed with government, not the other way around.

Muh Roads wrote:The first "bruh" in Libertatem.

Bruh...

Narland wrote:Narland turned into a Corporate Bordello just for givng tax cuts accross the board to corporations. You would think the more government taxes corps the more of an incentive there would be for corps to get into bed with government, not the other way around.

Perhaps not, since corporations getting in bed with the government is sometimes the reason the the tax cuts happen in the first place.

Whenever a tax cut comes up in issues, i go for the tax cut.

Here I am again. Investigator Crumlark, reporting for duty.

Narland wrote:Ack! When did i start sounding like my grandfather?!

About the same time I started sounding like my father.

In other news, students at Emory University are claiming emotional trauma resulting from violent assaults. The nature of the assault? Some using white chalk wrote either "TRUMP" or "TRUMP 2016" in various public places around the campus.

Even Bill Maher is laughing at them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYpgRqVixCg

Parvimperia

The Ambassador To The Clfr wrote:About the same time I started sounding like my father.

In other news, students at Emory University are claiming emotional trauma resulting from violent assaults. The nature of the assault? Some using white chalk wrote either "TRUMP" or "TRUMP 2016" in various public places around the campus.

My money is that something, somewhere went wrong in the game of Telephone our media plays. That, OR someone probably reported it to the principal or something, and they had to fill out a form where they described the reason, and something that reads like 'Violent Assault' was the closest option in the list of categories they had on the form.

Also, keep in mind that assault is the threat of violence, not violence itself! That would be 'battery'. *the more you know music plays

New Jaslandia, Rateria, Parvimperia

Crumlark wrote:My money is that something, somewhere went wrong in the game of Telephone our media plays. That, OR someone probably reported it to the principal or something, and they had to fill out a form where they described the reason, and something that reads like 'Violent Assault' was the closest option in the list of categories they had on the form.

Also, keep in mind that assault is the threat of violence, not violence itself! That would be 'battery'. *the more you know music plays

Must be a state to state thing. In Colorado the key element to an assault charge is physical touch. No touch, no assault there. To meet the elements of battery the assault hit to continue beyond a single touch or required some physical damage left behind. So if you shove someone, that's an assault. If you shove them and they fall down a set of stairs or they go to the floor and you kick the crap out of them while they are down, then you win the battery charge.

Simply threatening someone in Colorado is a separate charge called, oddly enough, threats.

Sadly enough, the story is thoroughly confirmed. Emory students are claiming violent assault over chalked Trump messages.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/03/28/emory-university-student-activists-trump-2016-chalk-free-speech-column/82322316/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kicker/are-these-protrump-scribb_b_9547972.html

http://www.unionleader.com/Chalk-to-the-system-University-students-in-a-bubble

http://fox61.com/2016/03/26/emory-no-suspects-no-follow-up-planned-on-trump-messages/

http://www.gazettetimes.com/print-specific/column/college-flap-throws-chill-on-speech/article_7a098825-da6e-56ac-83b7-860cdcb48164.html

Emory students themselves are uttering words of wisdom like, "I legitimately feared for my life. I thought we were having a KKK rally on campus." and "It’s the latest in a series of events that made students feel unwelcome. What Emory is, and what it represents — this is a pretty elite, Southern institution. ... It can be very easy for students to feel not welcome." (Huffington Post Article linked above.)

Seriously, I would not last three days as a student on a college campus these days. Between journalism teachers trying to get members of the media physically assaulted, speech codes and the Politically Correct Inquisition, I'd be tossed out on my ear before you could say "free speech."

The Ambassador To The Clfr wrote:About the same time I started sounding like my father.

In other news, students at Emory University are claiming emotional trauma resulting from violent assaults. The nature of the assault? Some using white chalk wrote either "TRUMP" or "TRUMP 2016" in various public places around the campus.

Even Bill Maher is laughing at them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYpgRqVixCg

There's a persistent sect of college students that represents the worst kind of stupid.

Not sure what it is. Perhaps there's something in the campus water.

The New United States, Rateria

Shirayuki Mizore wrote:There's a persistent sect of college students that represents the worst kind of stupid.

Not sure what it is. Perhaps there's something in the campus water.

Probably lead. How many people in Emory come from Flint Michigan

The New United States, Rateria

The Ambassador To The Clfr wrote:Must be a state to state thing... [snip]

Emory students themselves are uttering words of wisdom like, "I legitimately feared for my life." [snip]

Seriously, I would not last three days as a student on a college campus these days. Between journalism teachers trying to get members of the media physically assaulted, speech codes and the Politically Correct Inquisition, I'd be tossed out on my ear before you could say "free speech."

Yeah, down in South Carolina looking menacing or just getting up in someone's face can net you assualt. Bonus points for being black. :P

And, while these kids are being pretty stupid about the whole thing, I can kinda see where they're coming from, IF they live on campus. The idea of having a neighbor that supports a movement that seems to be getting more hateful and violent each passing day could unnerve ya.

Regarding college though, pshaw. Don't do anything that would land you a hate speech charge, and any number of colleges (if not all of them) would still happily take your money. Hell, they have a reputation for not expelling those who sexually assaulted other college students.

"let me be clear: Donald Trump may be a rat, but I have no desire to copulate with him." Ted Cruz

Um, what?

New Jaslandia

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/29/politics/scotus-4-4-decision-hands-public-sector-unions-a-victory/index.html

The death of compulsory unions has been postponed once again. But the political winds have been blowing strongly against them as of late. Mark my words, compulsory unionisation will be legally dead within a decade.

Miencraft, The New United States, Rateria, Parvimperia

A day to truly be mourned for the working class, if you say it true!

Pevvania wrote:

You're alive!

Pevvania wrote:http://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/29/politics/scotus-4-4-decision-hands-public-sector-unions-a-victory/index.html

The death of compulsory unions has been postponed once again. But the political winds have been blowing strongly against them as of late. Mark my words, compulsory unionisation will be legally dead within a decade.

Darn. If only we still had Justice Scalia. Hopefully we'll get a fitting replacement, come 2017.

Miencraft

> homework due in one hour

> homework website not working

Yippee.

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

Parvimperia wrote:"let me be clear: Donald Trump may be a rat, but I have no desire to copulate with him." Ted Cruz

Um, what?

Yeah, I like Ted Cruz and all, but that one was a bit of a head-scratcher.

San Andrias

(I know, four posts in a row - Sorry!!!)

So, we should hold elections soon. I'm afraid that I won't be able to run for President, after all, but I'd like to retain my Board Seat (if I'm re-elected) and I'd be more than happy to help with foreign policy (whether it be in an official or an unofficial capacity).

President [nation=short]Right-winged_nation[/nation], I would recommend that we, as President [nation=short]Humpheria[/nation] (Ret.) suggested, hold elections and then you issue an executive order dissolving the administration.

Humpheria wrote:I would have President RWN issue an executive order dissolving the current administration and Board once replacements are elected and serve a tertiary term until the next mandated election day per our laws and amendments..

San Andrias, Rateria, The United States Of Patriots

patiently sippin tea

Be kind enough to vote, pretty please?

http://www.nationstates.net/page=poll/p=52299

The New United States wrote:Yeah, I like Ted Cruz and all, but that one was a bit of a head-scratcher.

Dunno about all that now. Ted Cruz ain't my cup of tea- especially since he's been trying to ape after Trump's audience by competing with him to see who can abuse Muslims more. That, and he's not solid on his policies... I think I'll have to vote Sanders unless something changes fast, and a LOT. :/

New Jaslandia

The New United States wrote:I'm afraid that I won't be able to run for President, after all

Aww, I was looking forward to the traditional duel to the death!

The New United States, Rateria

Crumlark wrote:Dunno about all that now. Ted Cruz ain't my cup of tea- especially since he's been trying to ape after Trump's audience by competing with him to see who can abuse Muslims more. That, and he's not solid on his policies... I think I'll have to vote Sanders unless something changes fast, and a LOT. :/

Ah, the only candidate I can bring myself to dislike more than Trump. What an election.

New Jaslandia

Parvimperia wrote:"let me be clear: Donald Trump may be a rat, but I have no desire to copulate with him." Ted Cruz

Um, what?

That was when a campaign manager of Trumps said that the people Cruz allegedly had an affair with (there is no evidence) look liked rats. Hence Cruz's responds

Crumlark wrote:Dunno about all that now. Ted Cruz ain't my cup of tea- especially since he's been trying to ape after Trump's audience by competing with him to see who can abuse Muslims more. That, and he's not solid on his policies... I think I'll have to vote Sanders unless something changes fast, and a LOT. :/

But, but he's a Socialist!

The IRU has 34 nations. Libertatem has 69.

Someone somewhere is having a giggle.

Miencraft, San Andrias, Rateria, The United States Of Patriots

The worst part of it is, there are exactly 420 regions with a higher population than the IRU right now.

Anywho, you guys need help toppling your government?

San Andrias, New Jaslandia

Bresbaijan wrote:Probably lead. How many people in Emory come from Flint Michigan

I was born in Flint :P

Parvimperia

Conservative Idealism wrote:The worst part of it is, there are exactly 420 regions with a higher population than the IRU right now.

Anywho, you guys need help toppling your government?

Nah brah, Roads religo-martial law is in effect.

New Jaslandia

Crumlark wrote:Dunno about all that now. Ted Cruz ain't my cup of tea- especially since he's been trying to ape after Trump's audience by competing with him to see who can abuse Muslims more. That, and he's not solid on his policies... I think I'll have to vote Sanders unless something changes fast, and a LOT. :/

There are some things that I don't particularly love about Ted Cruz and his record - most notably his flip-flop on criminal justice reform and his siding with the Leviathan against Apple, as well as some of his campaign rhetoric on foreign policy and immigration. Despite that, I think it's clear that Ted Cruz would be the most pro-market and the most ardently Constitutionalist candidate that we've had in a very, very long time.

The choice between an economically illiterate democratic-socialist and a fairly consistent Constitutionalist that champions the principles of free-market economics should be an easy one, I think - especially given the fact that the next President will likely nominate at least one Supreme Court Justice.

In the words of the Justin Amash:

"Ted is not a libertarian and doesn’t claim to be. But he is a principled defender of the Constitution...To defend liberty, we must defend our Constitution. I’m supporting Ted because, knowing him personally and having served with him in Congress over the past few years, I trust him as a conservative ally who consistently listens to my perspective and stands firm for what he believes is right."

https://opinion.injo.com/2016/02/253437-trust-ted-cruz/

San Andrias

"Seconds ago: Following new legislation in Miencraft, Saturday morning cartoons feature full frontal nudity."

The choice that gets this response did absolutely nothing. Instead, it simply yielded a headline, "Old Man Yells At Cloud".

New Jaslandia, Rateria

Shirayuki Mizore wrote:Ah, the only candidate I can bring myself to dislike more than Trump. What an election.

Yeah, I'm inclined to agree with that. There's a reason the Republican elite hate Cruz more than Trump. Trump can be negotiated with and will likely work with the establishment when he needs to. Cruz is stubborn, very principled, and doesn't care about being liked, and while some may consider that a good thing, it scares me because Cruz is an evangelical Republican, and the last thing I want is the establishment of religious-based laws in America.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/21/why-the-republican-establishment-prefers-president-trump-to-president-cruz/

The United States Of Patriots wrote:But, but he's a Socialist!

*solemn nod* The man says he has a way to stop the jobs from leaving. Both parties have failed us there the last twenty years, and I'm fed up with the right not being able to deliver.

New Jaslandia wrote:Yeah, I'm inclined to agree with that. There's a reason the Republican elite hate Cruz more than Trump. Trump can be negotiated with and will likely work with the establishment when he needs to. Cruz is stubborn, very principled, and doesn't care about being liked, and while some may consider that a good thing, it scares me because Cruz is an evangelical Republican, and the last thing I want is the establishment of religious-based laws in America.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/21/why-the-republican-establishment-prefers-president-trump-to-president-cruz/

1. Cruz is both uncompromisingly principled and Southern Baptist

Therefore,

2. Cruz must want to use the Presidency to impose his religion on us

1. Ron Paul is both uncompromisingly principled and Southern Baptist

Therefore,

2. Ron Paul must have wanted to use the Presidency to impose his religion on us

Good thing we didn't nominate Ron Paul. That silly dominionist!

San Andrias

Crumlark wrote:*solemn nod* The man says he has a way to stop the jobs from leaving. Both parties have failed us there the last twenty years, and I'm fed up with the right not being able to deliver.

Everyone knows that the best way to bring back jobs is to punish businesses and raise taxes. *nods*

San Andrias, Rateria, Plusiocratic Federation Of Monetia, The United States Of Patriots

Libertarian presidential debate: Oregon edition

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cD9_SygKxRw

New Jaslandia wrote:Yeah, I'm inclined to agree with that. There's a reason the Republican elite hate Cruz more than Trump. Trump can be negotiated with and will likely work with the establishment when he needs to. Cruz is stubborn, very principled, and doesn't care about being liked, and while some may consider that a good thing, it scares me because Cruz is an evangelical Republican, and the last thing I want is the establishment of religious-based laws in America.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/21/why-the-republican-establishment-prefers-president-trump-to-president-cruz/

Think you misunderstood me. But to be fair I dislike all of the candidates immensely, so it hardly matters.

New Jaslandia

Muh Roads wrote:I was born in Flint :P

Must've been a shock hearing about it.

Ransomed Individuals wrote:1. Cruz is both uncompromisingly principled and Southern Baptist

Therefore,

2. Cruz must want to use the Presidency to impose his religion on us

1. Ron Paul is both uncompromisingly principled and Southern Baptist

Therefore,

2. Ron Paul must have wanted to use the Presidency to impose his religion on us

Good thing we didn't nominate Ron Paul. That silly dominionist!

It's certainly more likely to happen as opposed to candidates who leave their personal religion out of a political debate.

New Jaslandia

New Jaslandia wrote:Yeah, I'm inclined to agree with that. There's a reason the Republican elite hate Cruz more than Trump. Trump can be negotiated with and will likely work with the establishment when he needs to. Cruz is stubborn, very principled, and doesn't care about being liked, and while some may consider that a good thing, it scares me because Cruz is an evangelical Republican, and the last thing I want is the establishment of religious-based laws in America.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/21/why-the-republican-establishment-prefers-president-trump-to-president-cruz/

A reason why the Republican elite are afraid of Cruz may be this

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_cruz_vs_clinton-4034.html

as opposed to this

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_kasich_vs_clinton-5162.html

With a majority in both houses they know they could win the presidential election with a candidate who doesn't scare away independents.

New Jaslandia

Dear friends,

The Central Pacific Empire is hosting a Festival of Dangerous Ideas which will run from tomorrow (1 April) to 10 April.

If you have a controversial topic you would like to present at the Festival, which aims to be the sharing of dangerous ideas and views, please telegram me ASAP.

I also invite all the general public to come to our region and attend the Festival. We will be encouraging discussion of the Dangerous Ideas. I hope to meet and welcome you all to our region.

Regards,

Aanon Bay

Prime Minister of the Central Pacific Empire

Plusiocratic Federation Of Monetia wrote:A reason why the Republican elite are afraid of Cruz may be this

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_cruz_vs_clinton-4034.html

as opposed to this

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_kasich_vs_clinton-5162.html

With a majority in both houses they know they could win the presidential election with a candidate who doesn't scare away independents.

Romney didn't scare away the indepentets but he failed to excite the base

San Andrias

When Good Girl Gone Bad Reloaded comes on !!!!!!!!

Ransomed Individuals wrote:1. Cruz is both uncompromisingly principled and Southern Baptist

Therefore,

2. Cruz must want to use the Presidency to impose his religion on us

1. Ron Paul is both uncompromisingly principled and Southern Baptist

Therefore,

2. Ron Paul must have wanted to use the Presidency to impose his religion on us

Good thing we didn't nominate Ron Paul. That silly dominionist!

Ron Paul didn't emphasize religion as much as Cruz does. Plus, Paul was never the darling of evangelicals; Cruz is.

Shirayuki Mizore wrote:Think you misunderstood me. But to be fair I dislike all of the candidates immensely, so it hardly matters.

Oh, my apologies.

Plusiocratic Federation Of Monetia wrote:A reason why the Republican elite are afraid of Cruz may be this

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_cruz_vs_clinton-4034.html

as opposed to this

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_kasich_vs_clinton-5162.html

With a majority in both houses they know they could win the presidential election with a candidate who doesn't scare away independents.

I'm familiar with the polls, although that may not fully explain it, as Cruz's numbers are slightly better than Trump's against Hillary (at least last I checked). The ideal Republican candidate at this point would be Kasich, but he can only get the nomination through a brokered convention. However, if that happens, Kasich will likely lose in the general, because Republican voters will be furious at what they see as the elite undermining the will of the people to hand the nomination to one of their one (and to be fair, they're not entirely wrong).

In short, the GOP is screwed in 2016. I would just focus on planning ahead for 2020 if I was them, since I think Hillary will be in a weak position when she's running for reelection.

Parvimperia

I think the goal of many in the GOP is to disestablish a certain elements which control the party machinery and are willing to vote for Trump in the hopes it will facilitate that happening--regardless of the outcome of the national election. No more McCains, no more Romneys, no more Bushes even if that means voting for a candidate who is closer to Reform Party in his positions than to the GOP platform. I think they will be sorely disappointed, especially if Trump chooses Chris Christie as his VP.

The United States Of Patriots wrote:Romney didn't scare away the indepentets but he failed to excite the base

True that. That's another risk...

Ugh, party politics.

New Jaslandia, Rateria, The United States Of Patriots

Narland wrote:I think the goal of many in the GOP is to disestablish a certain elements which control the party machinery and are willing to vote for Trump in the hopes it will facilitate that happening--regardless of the outcome of the national election. No more McCains, no more Romneys, no more Bushes even if that means voting for a candidate who is closer to Reform Party in his positions than to the GOP platform. I think they will be sorely disappointed, especially if Trump chooses Chris Christie as his VP.

Although, that does raise the question of what will happen to Trump's base if he loses the general election. Will the establishment and the Trumpians establish an uneasy alliance, like the establishment and the Tea Party did? Will Trump voters lash out against the establishment and form their own party, or kick out the establishment? Will the establishment lash out against Trump voters, and form a separate party or kick out Trump's people? Or, will Trump and his base fade away and things return to normal? This election is sorta fascinating in how many questions it raises.

Plusiocratic Federation Of Monetia wrote:True that. That's another risk...

Ugh, party politics.

Romney had multiple problems: his moderate record failed to excite the Tea Party, his Mormonism failed to excite Protestant evangelicals, and his last-minute pandering to the Tea Party alienated some moderates and independents. Romney was stuck between a rock and a hard place in having to choose between winning over the base, or winning over moderates and independents, and neither one could bring Romney victory on their own. Romney flip-flopped and ultimately failed to truly win over either one. Trump may suffer a similiar problem depending on what his general election strategy is.

Ransomed Individuals wrote:Everyone knows that the best way to bring back jobs is to punish businesses and raise taxes. *nods*

That... or hike tariffs and pull us out of trade deals that encourage corporations to leave the US.

Also, punish businesses? How do you think they'd be harmed?

Alabama to lead the way for civil rights and abolish marriage licensing.

The Ambassador To The Clfr, Parvimperia

http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2016/03/alabama-committee-passes-bill-eliminating-marriage-licensing/

The Ambassador To The Clfr, Parvimperia

The New United States wrote:(I know, four posts in a row - Sorry!!!)

So, we should hold elections soon. I'm afraid that I won't be able to run for President, after all, but I'd like to retain my Board Seat (if I'm re-elected) and I'd be more than happy to help with foreign policy (whether it be in an official or an unofficial capacity).

President [nation=short]Right-winged_nation[/nation], I would recommend that we, as President [nation=short]Humpheria[/nation] (Ret.) suggested, hold elections and then you issue an executive order dissolving the administration.

Let's hold elections, effectively dissolving this current administration.

Miencraft, The New United States, San Andrias, New Jaslandia, Rateria, The United States Of Patriots

Republic Of Minerva wrote:http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2016/03/alabama-committee-passes-bill-eliminating-marriage-licensing/

While I'd be willing to accept abolition of government marriage licenses, I can't really support this because I'm 99% sure this is a way to get around the Supreme Court's gay marriage ruling.

New Jaslandia wrote:While I'd be willing to accept abolition of government marriage licenses, I can't really support this because I'm 99% sure this is a way to get around the Supreme Court's gay marriage ruling.

That, and I'm worried deregulating marriage on a state-by-state basis will just open a Pandora's box of legal confusion, similar to how gay marriage was legalized one state at a time. If we're gonna remove the government from marriage, it should be done on a national level. I know that it seems odd, but the alternative as I see it would be a messy court battle over the legal benefits associated with marriage.

New Jaslandia wrote:That, and I'm worried deregulating marriage on a state-by-state basis will just open a Pandora's box of legal confusion, similar to how gay marriage was legalized one state at a time. If we're gonna remove the government from marriage, it should be done on a national level. I know that it seems odd, but the alternative as I see it would be a messy court battle over the legal benefits associated with marriage.

Let private individuals establish precedent through courts. Furthermore, I see no reason why a private marriage contract can't be legally accepted by the government in regards to benefits and the like.

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