Post Archive

Region: Libertatem

History

Muh Roads wrote:I hate catchy choruses and I'm a hypocrite

Hungry hungry hippo-crite

I hate catchy choruses and I'm a hypocrite

I am the composer of Karn Evil 9

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:Who is Ethikon?

I already answered that question!!!

I am...

THE GREAT GAZOO

I made Flintstones jump the shark!

Doodoo doodoodoo doodoo doodoodoo!

Welcome back, my friends

To the show that never ends

We're so glad you could attend

Come inside! Come inside!

Ethikon wrote:I already answered that question!!!

I am...

THE GREAT GAZOO

I made Flintstones jump the shark!

Doodoo doodoodoo doodoo doodoodoo!

Welcome back, my friends

To the show that never ends

We're so glad you could attend

Come inside! Come inside!

what level of autism is this

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

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

The States Of Balloon wrote:what level of autism is this

The level that made Frank Sinatra sing Eyes Without a Face or produced a Cajun rendition of Take on Me

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:Don't telegram me nonsense, please.

The doctor prescribed 3 spoonfuls of nonsense a day to get rid of your goiter

The New Icelandic Commonwealth

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:Seriously, don't do it again. Sending me nonsense against my will violates the NAP or something.

Obviously you have never heard Karn Evil 9 before

Tell you what

In the future, I"ll speak broken English in the third person, and you can all hold a vote where you decide if the mental voice you give me is more like a member of the Lollipop Guild or Peter Lorre

Ethikon wrote:The level that made Frank Sinatra sing Eyes Without a Face or produced a Cajun rendition of Take on Me

I wish these existed

Kumquat Cove, West Smolcasm

Post self-deleted by Ethikon.

Jadentopian Order wrote:Something something Necessary and Proper

The Necessary and Proper clause, as James Madison wrote about exhaustively, has to be tied to a specific enumerated power. For example, Article I, Section 8, Clause 7, which empowers Congress "to establish Post Offices and Post Roads", can only be enacted if Congress passes a law as permitted by the N/P clause; the USPS wasn't just going to exist on its own. There is no enumerated power allowing for federal socialised medicine or welfare.

Miencraft, The New United States, Rateria, The United States Of Patriots, West Smolcasm, Highway Eighty-Eight

There once was a man who was addicted to drinking brake fluid. He said he could stop anytime he wanted.

Pevvania, The New United States, Kumquat Cove, Rateria, Skaveria, West Smolcasm, Highway Eighty-Eight

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Suzi Island wrote:There once was a man who was addicted to drinking brake fluid. He said he could stop anytime he wanted.

Yeah but anyone who's addicted says- oh haha

Rateria, Highway Eighty-Eight

Suzi Island wrote:There once was a man who was addicted to drinking brake fluid. He said he could stop anytime he wanted.

A man who runs in front of a car gets tired. A man who runs behind a car gets exhausted.

Pevvania, Kumquat Cove, Rateria, Highway Eighty-Eight

Jadentopian Order wrote:I wish these existed

Three words:

Emerson

Lake

Palmer

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:They should have made it more explicit in the document so that people didn't argue otherwise.

The beauty of hindsight, eh? The Commerce Clause is another one that's been widely misinterpreted. The meaning of the word 'regulation' at the time meant 'to keep regular' as in to keep a stream or a river flowing unrestricted. In context, the clause was adopted in order to prevent states from enacting barriers to commerce between other states, because under the Articles of Confederation many states put up trade barriers and similar edicts that restricted market integration. So the Commerce Clause was designed to prevent oppressive regulations, not encourage them, a sad irony indeed.

Rateria, West Smolcasm

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:They should have made it more explicit in the document so that people didn't argue otherwise.

I don't see how it can be any more explicit than "necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers".

It literally explains the full extent of what "necessary and proper" means, it's on morons and tyrants for trying to put a period after "necessary and proper" so that there is no qualification for it. Exact same thing that's being done to make the right of the people in the second amendment somehow apply to the militia instead.

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

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:I believe I have repeatedly explained something similar concerning the second amendment and that one word: regulated.

At the time, regulate was a synonym for maintain. A well regulated militia would be a well maintained militia. At any rate, the militia part of that article is separate from the sentences on eother side of it, so a person with understanding of English shoukd no that nowhere in the constitution is the government given power to enact gun control.

Do you have a source for this? I’m genuinely interested. It could also be useful if I ever get into a debate on this issue and want to bring this up.

West Smolcasm

Miencraft wrote:I don't see how it can be any more explicit than "necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers".

It literally explains the full extent of what "necessary and proper" means, it's on morons and tyrants for trying to put a period after "necessary and proper" so that there is no qualification for it. Exact same thing that's being done to make the right of the people in the second amendment somehow apply to the militia instead.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:I believe I have repeatedly explained something similar concerning the second amendment and that one word: regulated.

At the time, regulate was a synonym for maintain. A well regulated militia would be a well maintained militia. At any rate, the militia part of that article is separate from the sentences on eother side of it, so a person with understanding of English shoukd no that nowhere in the constitution is the government given power to enact gun control.

The right of people to bear arms is woefully misunderstood in a society coddled into believing that their words are more forceful and impactful than bullets. While I suspect that some firearm owners would be more likely to take up arms for statists than against them, the prevalence of gun ownership nonetheless serves as something of a soft check against tyranny; hardline advocates of gun control might not realize just how close they'd be to oppression and subjugation if they were to succeed in their aims.

With that said, I must note that an unfortunate consequence of the widespread ownership and use of guns in America is the disproportionate level of gun-related crime. If not gun control, what other initiatives might keep guns out of the hands of violent criminals?

Miencraft, Rateria

West Smolcasm wrote:The right of people to bear arms is woefully misunderstood in a society coddled into believing that their words are more forceful and impactful than bullets. While I suspect that some firearm owners would be more likely to take up arms for statists than against them, the prevalence of gun ownership nonetheless serves as something of a soft check against tyranny; hardline advocates of gun control might not realize just how close they'd be to oppression and subjugation if they were to succeed in their aims.

With that said, I must note that an unfortunate consequence of the widespread ownership and use of guns in America is the disproportionate level of gun-related crime. If not gun control, what other initiatives might keep guns out of the hands of violent criminals?

Ending the war on drugs and allocating more money to the police force would be a start.

Miencraft, Rateria, West Smolcasm

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Skaveria wrote:Ending the war on drugs and allocating more money to the police force would be a start.

*allocating less money to everything

Miencraft, Pevvania

Jadentopian Order wrote:*allocating less money to everything

*allocating no money to everything

Miencraft, Jadentopian Order

"A baby's first breath is also a baby's first felony." *Hmm meme intensifies*

Hmm communities I used to spend many hours in are applauding the removal of opposition opinions such as myself and others and stating a clear preference towards echochambering. In most other political and debates forums the start and or completion of an echochamber by opposition leaving and or removed was considered a major failure of all sides in that we failed to find common ground or that one side lost their temper.

Is this the start of an age of ideological puritanism where one side wants everyone to think like them?

West Smolcasm

The Completly Oppressive States wrote:Hmm communities I used to spend many hours in are applauding the removal of opposition opinions such as myself and others and stating a clear preference towards echochambering. In most other political and debates forums the start and or completion of an echochamber by opposition leaving and or removed was considered a major failure of all sides in that we failed to find common ground or that one side lost their temper.

Is this the start of an age of ideological puritanism where one side wants everyone to think like them?

In short, yes.

Jadentopian Order wrote:*allocating less money to everything

*literally cutting everything except for police, military, and hosting elections.

The Completly Oppressive States wrote:Is this the start of an age of ideological puritanism where one side wants everyone to think like them?

"""""start"""""

Miencraft wrote:"""""start"""""

Well yeah? This desire to convince or convict everyone to your side is entirely knew to me. Convincing people is always a goal of a debate but also to understand other sides better. But stooping to removal and/or convicting them of "otherthought" is downright horrifying. I always thought ideological diversity was signs of a healthy debate/discourse especially when its been going on for awhile. The idea that people would be averse to that is honestly a bit confusing to me.

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:You have happily been absent from all of Human history.

Things you pleasantly missed:

The Crusades

The Reign of Terror

The Great Purge

The Cultural Revolution

The Holocaust

McCarthyism

The Mormon Extermination Order

The Armenian Genocide

The Peasant Wars

The current Syrian Genocide

The American Civil War

The Spanish Civil War

Among many many many many many many many many many many [...] many more past and current events.

Humanity sucks.

Of course those have happened and I thought someone would bring it up but here I am strictly bringing up public debate and those who want you to agree entirely or its the same as not at all. Some of these could work well for what I'm saying like the American Civil War but most of those were not really in reference to what I am saying. But I guess if you boil all the nuance off of it they all look that way.

The Completly Oppressive States wrote:This desire to convince or convict everyone to your side is entirely knew to me.

Because you've presumably somehow managed to survive this long without ever having heard of the Roman Empire, the Catholic Church, Muhammad, the Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphates, Louis XVI Bourbon, Iosif Stalin, Benito Mussolini, Adolf Hitler, Mao Zedong, the Ottoman Empire, Franklin D. Roosevelt, the Palestinian Liberation Organization, the European Union, the United Nations, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Nation of Islam, the Ku Klux Klan, and quite a few more shining examples.

Miencraft wrote:Because you've presumably somehow managed to survive this long without ever having heard of the Roman Empire, the Catholic Church, Muhammad, the Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphates, Louis XVI Bourbon, Iosif Stalin, Benito Mussolini, Adolf Hitler, Mao Zedong, the Ottoman Empire, Franklin D. Roosevelt, the Palestinian Liberation Organization, the European Union, the United Nations, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Nation of Islam, the Ku Klux Klan, and quite a few more shining examples.

Still missing my point I'm speaking specifically in regards to civil discourse not religious disputes, fear, etc. etc. More specifically I'm speaking on modern discourse and the people who are so averse to having a debate against others and considers having an echochamber agreeable.

However I do know most of those I am curious about the FDR bit mind elaborating that?

The Completly Oppressive States wrote:However I do know most of those I am curious about the FDR bit mind elaborating that?

"Let's throw those Japs into concentration camps just because they're Japs, also wouldn't it be great if I just added six more judges to the Supreme Court so the Court agrees with me and shuts down any debate that might indicate that I am wrong?"

Miencraft wrote:"Let's throw those Japs into concentration camps just because they're Japs, also wouldn't it be great if I just added six more judges to the Supreme Court so the Court agrees with me and shuts down any debate that might indicate that I am wrong?"

Figured the Internment camps but the judges is new to me

The Completly Oppressive States wrote:but the judges is new to me

Fortunately, nobody knows about it because he wasn't successful - though unfortunately schools don't like to talk about it because they make him look like the tyrant he was trying to be, which is the same reason they gloss over the fact that his New Deal nonsense just made the Depression worse.

Miencraft wrote:Fortunately, nobody knows about it because he wasn't successful - though unfortunately schools don't like to talk about it because they make him look like the tyrant he was trying to be, which is the same reason they gloss over the fact that his New Deal nonsense just made the Depression worse.

Yeah I agree my one teacher back in HS actually hated FDR but wouldn't say it unless inquired due to policy reasons

Miencraft wrote:Fortunately, nobody knows about it because he wasn't successful - though unfortunately schools don't like to talk about it because they make him look like the tyrant he was trying to be, which is the same reason they gloss over the fact that his New Deal nonsense just made the Depression worse.

Looked into this further and holy crap did he duck that one up

Miencraft wrote:Fortunately, nobody knows about it because he wasn't successful - though unfortunately schools don't like to talk about it because they make him look like the tyrant he was trying to be, which is the same reason they gloss over the fact that his New Deal nonsense just made the Depression worse.

The Completly Oppressive States wrote:Yeah I agree my one teacher back in HS actually hated FDR but wouldn't say it unless inquired due to policy reasons

You both might be happy to know that my US History teacher actually talked about this. If I remember correctly, he stated that this attempted court-packing is unconstitutional.

The Completly Oppressive States wrote:Hmm communities I used to spend many hours in are applauding the removal of opposition opinions such as myself and others and stating a clear preference towards echochambering. In most other political and debates forums the start and or completion of an echochamber by opposition leaving and or removed was considered a major failure of all sides in that we failed to find common ground or that one side lost their temper.

Is this the start of an age of ideological puritanism where one side wants everyone to think like them?

It's been this way for awhile, but yes.

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Planned Parenthood 2018: Abortion is only 3% of the services we provide!

Planned Parenthood 2019: "Our core mission is providing, protecting and expanding access to abortion and reproductive health care."

https://twitter.com/drleanawen/status/1082660986513960966?lang=en

The New Icelandic Commonwealth

The Completly Oppressive States wrote:Hmm communities I used to spend many hours in are applauding the removal of opposition opinions such as myself and others and stating a clear preference towards echochambering. In most other political and debates forums the start and or completion of an echochamber by opposition leaving and or removed was considered a major failure of all sides in that we failed to find common ground or that one side lost their temper.

Is this the start of an age of ideological puritanism where one side wants everyone to think like them?

Remind me of my experiences with SCP

Rateria wrote:You both might be happy to know that my US History teacher actually talked about this. If I remember correctly, he stated that this attempted court-packing is unconstitutional.

That's actually interesting. On what basis?

Because the number of Justices is never defined anywhere.

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:Pevvania how is that Constition going?

Needs a little more time in the oven, but the flavors are coming out nicely.

The New Icelandic Commonwealth

Miencraft wrote:That's actually interesting. On what basis?

Because the number of Justices is never defined anywhere.

I don’t remember exactly, or if he even said it. I think I remember him not agreeing with it though.

Maybe I’ll ask him his thoughts on it and get back to you, if you want.

Rateria wrote:I don’t remember exactly, or if he even said it. I think I remember him not agreeing with it though.

Maybe I’ll ask him his thoughts on it and get back to you, if you want.

Sure.

New poll! Only for one day. Come and Vote!

https://www.nationstates.net/page=poll/p=136754

The New United States, Rateria

Hello all!

The New United States, Rateria

Teriakan Owl wrote:Hello all!

sup owl homie

The New United States

Suggestions for the next meme of the month?

The New United States

The United States Of Patriots wrote:Suggestions for the next meme of the month?

Anything but shaggy memes, for the love of god.

The New United States, Jadentopian Order

Skaveria wrote:Anything but shaggy memes, for the love of god.

shaggy did 9/11 while at 0.0000000000000000001% of his power

I hated Ralph Northam when he ran, I hate him even more now. What an absolute embarrassment to the state.

The New United States

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

First of all, eff the Patriots.

Politico: "Trump’s State of the Union pledge: Ending HIV transmissions by 2030"

This is a smart move on Trump's part. One of the reasons Bill Clinton was able to win re-election despite some massive legislative and foreign policy failures - plus constant scandals - was because he was able to appeal to moderates by waging these centrist, feel-good public health campaigns against things like smoking. If Trump can pull off a similar feat, it could help his standing in the next election dramatically.

The New United States

Pevvania wrote:First of all, eff the Patriots.

I cannot believe that I watched that game.

Pevvania wrote:This is a smart move on Trump's part. One of the reasons Bill Clinton was able to win re-election despite some massive legislative and foreign policy failures - plus constant scandals - was because he was able to appeal to moderates by waging these centrist, feel-good public health campaigns against things like smoking. If Trump can pull off a similar feat, it could help his standing in the next election dramatically.

I don't know why he didn't do this already. He should use NASA and HIV and nice nonpartisan policies more if he wants to win. Seriously, he just needs to keep talking about Mars exploration. That was one of his most popular ideas. Americans eat that stuff up so quickly.

Pevvania, The New United States, Rateria

Jadentopian Order wrote:I cannot believe that I watched that game.

I don't know why he didn't do this already. He should use NASA and HIV and nice nonpartisan policies more if he wants to win. Seriously, he just needs to keep talking about Mars exploration. That was one of his most popular ideas. Americans eat that stuff up so quickly.

Funding healthcare research into HIV and dumping more money into NASA to explore mars may win him votes, but both of those things aren't what government is for. Don't compromise principles for electability.

Jadentopian Order wrote:I hated Ralph Northam when he ran, I hate him even more now. What an absolute embarrassment to the state.

Sad that the state that gave us Thomas Jefferson, John Randolph, and Robert E. Lee is now governed by the likes of Ralph Northam and Justin Fairfax.

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Jadentopian Order wrote:I hated Ralph Northam when he ran, I hate him even more now. What an absolute embarrassment to the state.

I bet Virginia voters are having some buyer's remorse! And whoever ran the opposition research team for Gillespie should learn to code.

Pevvania wrote:I bet Virginia voters are having some buyer's remorse! And whoever ran the opposition research team for Gillespie should learn to code.

My first reaction to this story was "How did this not come out earlier?" The pic was in his MED SCHOOL YEARBOOK!!! Man he would have been ruined if this came out during the election, though I was definitely not a fan of Gillespie either

Rateria

hi, I’m new here. I played NS on and off for a long time. Can I stay?

Narland, The Completly Oppressive States, Rateria, The United States Of Patriots, Skaveria, Jadentopian Order, The New Icelandic Commonwealth

Elanore wrote:hi, I’m new here. I played NS on and off for a long time. Can I stay?

Course you can! Welcome!

Rateria, Jadentopian Order

Elanore wrote:hi, I’m new here. I played NS on and off for a long time. Can I stay?

Welcome

Rateria

New poll in Zentari!

https://www.nationstates.net/page=poll/p=136922

The New United States, Rateria

The three most powerful threats to American Civilization are about to meet under the same roof in a few minutes. Thankfully there is a Constitution betwixt them and our life, liberty, and property by a more powerful oath that they took to defend and protect our Constitutional rights.

Pevvania

Stacey Abrams is cringy

Pevvania wrote:Stacey Abrams is cringy

The only thing worse about her speech than its content and her lame presentation was the unsettlingly expressionless, motionless gaggle behind her staring into the camera the whole time. Had a vibe more reminiscent of John Carpenter's "They Live" than anything.

Thank the Lord she isn't my governor.

Pevvania

"We will drag them ... kicking and screaming (into Socialism) should we have to." -- Nelson Rockefeller

"We Are All Socialists Now" -- Newsweek Headline 16 February 2009

"America will never be a Socialist country." -- Donald Trump

Pevvania, The New United States

How are our neighbors in Libertatem?

The New United States, Rateria, Jadentopian Order

The New United States wrote:The only thing worse about her speech than its content and her lame presentation was the unsettlingly expressionless, motionless gaggle behind her staring into the camera the whole time. Had a vibe more reminiscent of John Carpenter's "They Live" than anything.

Thank the Lord she isn't my governor.

Weird, right? She spoke in so many platitudes the whole thing just came across as phony and political. Made me feel uncomfortable.

Also, she blatantly lied when speaking of the "rigged" Republican tax bill, warning of "impending layoffs" and "wages not keeping pace with inflation". This is literally the opposite of the truth; the unemployment rate is essentially at a fifty-year low and wages and real compensation are actually growing at the fastest rate since before the recession. And 3% growth, people...

They have no real arguments, so they must resort to lies and mistruths. Sad!

The New United States

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

If somebody out there doesn't realize how much power the government exerts in our daily lives, take this example: cities and counties lower the speed limit when not enough people are speeding. Think about that, a law that is hypothetically for public safety is maliable to the point where it can be changed at a drop of a hat when not enough money is coming in.

Think about this, a road you've driven on your entire life at 55 mph is suddenly changed to 45 mph, literally because too many people were obeying the law. You get pulled, ticketed, and sent on your way. You refuse to pay the fine and don't show up to court because it's obvious coersion and unconstitutional. Armed agents of the state come to your home to kidnap you. They want to imprison you until you pay the fine. You resist their kidnapping. They kill you for resistance. In this country today it's still possible to get killed over a speeding ticket.

Pevvania, Jadentopian Order

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:I couldn't help but notice the hypocrisy of his denouncing coercion right after talking about some of his coercive economic policies.

But it's ok when we do it

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Skaveria wrote:If somebody out there doesn't realize how much power the government exerts in our daily lives, take this example: cities and counties lower the speed limit when not enough people are speeding. Think about that, a law that is hypothetically for public safety is maliable to the point where it can be changed at a drop of a hat when not enough money is coming in.

Think about this, a road you've driven on your entire life at 55 mph is suddenly changed to 45 mph, literally because too many people were obeying the law. You get pulled, ticketed, and sent on your way. You refuse to pay the fine and don't show up to court because it's obvious coersion and unconstitutional. Armed agents of the state come to your home to kidnap you. They want to imprison you until you pay the fine. You resist their kidnapping. They kill you for resistance. In this country today it's still possible to get killed over a speeding ticket.

shut up lolbertarian pollution is bad

Pevvania wrote: warning of "impending layoffs"

Jesus christ that is literally the opposite of what's happening

Skaveria wrote:If somebody out there doesn't realize how much power the government exerts in our daily lives, take this example: cities and counties lower the speed limit when not enough people are speeding. Think about that, a law that is hypothetically for public safety is maliable to the point where it can be changed at a drop of a hat when not enough money is coming in.

Think about this, a road you've driven on your entire life at 55 mph is suddenly changed to 45 mph, literally because too many people were obeying the law. You get pulled, ticketed, and sent on your way. You refuse to pay the fine and don't show up to court because it's obvious coersion and unconstitutional. Armed agents of the state come to your home to kidnap you. They want to imprison you until you pay the fine. You resist their kidnapping. They kill you for resistance. In this country today it's still possible to get killed over a speeding ticket.

Speeding law enforcement is bogus. One day it's "Oh it's fine, 5 over doesn't matter", the next it's "Well the radar said you were 3 over...". Still never had a ticket though.

Pevvania, The New United States

Who do you guys see being the Libertarian nominee in 2020? Assuming that Johnson is done trying to drag Libertarianism towards Republicanism finally, I see two potential candidates. Austin Peterson and John McAfee. Both are great minarchist candidates with McAfee being slightly more anti-government and a focus on cyber-security and crypto, he has decades more experience in business, but has a LOT of personal baggage. Peterson has a lot of energy, but is only barely old enough to even run for president. He's pretty radical, even as Libertarians go, advocating for privatizing the military, but he's also pro-life at the same time, a strange combination. He's got a much better understanding of youth culture, seeing as though he's much more youthful.

Personally I'd love to see McAfee get the nomination, but Peterson is much more electable, he's basically a much more ideologically pure, younger, and more energetic Gary Johnson.

The New United States, Oakplumington

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

The New United States, The United States Of Patriots

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:The Aradites

Rip casino dites

The New United States, Rateria

F

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

Skaveria wrote:Who do you guys see being the Libertarian nominee in 2020? Assuming that Johnson is done trying to drag Libertarianism towards Republicanism finally, I see two potential candidates. Austin Peterson and John McAfee. Both are great minarchist candidates with McAfee being slightly more anti-government and a focus on cyber-security and crypto, he has decades more experience in business, but has a LOT of personal baggage. Peterson has a lot of energy, but is only barely old enough to even run for president. He's pretty radical, even as Libertarians go, advocating for privatizing the military, but he's also pro-life at the same time, a strange combination. He's got a much better understanding of youth culture, seeing as though he's much more youthful.

Personally I'd love to see McAfee get the nomination, but Peterson is much more electable, he's basically a much more ideologically pure, younger, and more energetic Gary Johnson.

Whichever candidate that can push Trump to the right economically and at the same take votes away from the Democratic nominee. A tall order that's probably contradictory, but I'd be happy with one of the two.

McAfee is probably the better candidate. He has some name recognition through his annoying security software.

The New United States

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:The prevailing belief.

I kid, of course. This has been the sad irony of post-Eisenhower Republicans - the deficit is bad when we're out of power, but it's good when we're back in office.

The New United States, Oakplumington

At what point would a US/OAS-backed military intervention in Venezuela be appropriate? I want to hear a discussion on this.

In theory I would love to see scumbag Maduro removed from power, Team America style - but if course it's never that simple. Venezuela is far stronger and larger than Grenada, Panama and Haiti. So a hasty ground war could easily turn into a quagmire. I think right now the Trump administration and international orgs are doing the right thing by cornering Maduro diplomatically, but how long can this be effective?

What do you guys think?

The New United States

Pevvania wrote:At what point would a US/OAS-backed military intervention in Venezuela be appropriate? I want to hear a discussion on this.

In theory I would love to see scumbag Maduro removed from power, Team America style - but if course it's never that simple. Venezuela is far stronger and larger than Grenada, Panama and Haiti. So a hasty ground war could easily turn into a quagmire. I think right now the Trump administration and international orgs are doing the right thing by cornering Maduro diplomatically, but how long can this be effective?

What do you guys think?

I definitely agree with you that putting diplomatic pressure on Maduro and recognizing the Guiadó government has so far been the right thing to do for the US. In the near future, I do think that the US could play a greater, albeit limited in nature, role in deposing Maduro. I don't think that a full-blown, US-led intervention would be welcomed; I think it would be much easier for the Chavistas and the radical-left to further discount the legitimate government as an American-imposed and American-controlled one, and thus fuel unrest for years to come.

The best way forward then, I think, would be for the administration to work with and encourage regional partners (ie Colombia, Brazil, etc.) to lead a humanitarian intervention. These countries have been affected much more greatly by the Venezuelan crisis than has the United States, with Colombia bearing the burden of over a million Venezuelan refugees, Peru half a million, and so on (according to the UNHCR as of Dec 2018). The Brookings Institution projects that the number of Venezuelan refugees could reasonably triple over the course of the next year, putting even more stress on neighboring countries.

Venezuela's neighbors could very justifiably conduct a humanitarian intervention in Venezuela in order to protect their own national interests, and I imagine that a coalition led by Latin-American nations would have an air of legitimacy that an American-led intervention might not enjoy.

I think that such an intervention, with congressionally-approved, limited US-backing, ought to happen if the conflict between the Maduro and Guiadó governments comes to a violent head.

Ideally, the military will turn on Maduro and depose him, thus making intervention unnecessary. However, the skeptic in me doubts that it will be so simple.

P.S.

I'm no expert of Venezuelan or Latin-American politics. I'm open to changing my mind if someone provides a better answer.

UN refugee numbers: https://www.unhcr.org/news/press/2018/11/5be4192b4/number-refugees-migrants-venezuela-reaches-3-million.html

Brookings Institution projections: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2018/12/10/how-many-more-migrants-and-refugees-can-we-expect-out-of-venezuela/

Pevvania

Pevvania wrote:At what point would a US/OAS-backed military intervention in Venezuela be appropriate? I want to hear a discussion on this.

In theory I would love to see scumbag Maduro removed from power, Team America style - but if course it's never that simple. Venezuela is far stronger and larger than Grenada, Panama and Haiti. So a hasty ground war could easily turn into a quagmire. I think right now the Trump administration and international orgs are doing the right thing by cornering Maduro diplomatically, but how long can this be effective?

What do you guys think?

Does America never learn from its mistakes? What excuse do you have to invade Venezuela now?! Because you don't like its leader? I don't care what the Americans are gonna tell us, like always, it's more than bringing "peace and stability" to those countries (which wouldn't really happen even if that were the only intentions of the American imperialists)

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:I also love how most critics don't describe Chinese or Russoan foreign policy as imperialistic, despite Chinese and Russian foreign policy being much more underhanded and unfair. Certainly less humane. Either way, Self interest: groups oppose individuals that oppose them.

The Chinese and Russians don't have their dirty little fingers in every part of the world, unlike the filthy American imperialists. Shame on you for making excuses!

The New Icelandic Commonwealth wrote:The Chinese and Russians don't have their dirty little fingers in every part of the world

You must not be very familiar with the world.

The New United States, The United States Of Patriots, West Smolcasm, Highway Eighty-Eight

Skaveria wrote:If somebody out there doesn't realize how much power the government exerts in our daily lives, take this example: cities and counties lower the speed limit when not enough people are speeding. Think about that, a law that is hypothetically for public safety is maliable to the point where it can be changed at a drop of a hat when not enough money is coming in.

Think about this, a road you've driven on your entire life at 55 mph is suddenly changed to 45 mph, literally because too many people were obeying the law. You get pulled, ticketed, and sent on your way. You refuse to pay the fine and don't show up to court because it's obvious coersion and unconstitutional. Armed agents of the state come to your home to kidnap you. They want to imprison you until you pay the fine. You resist their kidnapping. They kill you for resistance. In this country today it's still possible to get killed over a speeding ticket.

This State used to have Open Sky regulations (different from the Statists hijacked term today), wherein one was taught and expected to drive well and at a safe speed. A safe speed was fast enough to get to one's destination comfortably without loss to life and limb dependent on the weather, type of road, condition of vehicle, and traffic. Unsafe on a clear dry flat straightaway with limited access in little to no traffic for a Ford Model T was +40 mph; AMC Cosmopolitan was +50 mph downhill in a tailwind; +90 mph for a DeSoto Adventurer; and unsafe at any speed for a Chevy Corvair. Comfortable was probably 35 mph for the Tin Lizzie, 45 mph for the Cosmo, 75 mph for the Advent; and in the cab of a slow moving AAA truck towing the Corvair.

Where lower speed limits were posted was at location where there were hazardous areas such as sharp curves or obfuscatory hills, steep embankments, unexpected access, dangers such as falling rocks, impeding wildlife, livestock, and horse or foot traffic. Known outlaw ambush sights were also marked --no stop zones (last massacre was in 1951) but those signs were taken down in the 70s probably because bandits realized they could rob more efficiently as politicians and bureaucrats.

If a village or larger was patent they could set up regulatory speeds in their jurisdiction. Traffic speeds used to be determined (every so often) by recording the mean average driving speed of the traffic and adjusted upward a percentile. The drivers of the road actually determined posted speeds by their varied usage. Areas that had better drivers with better handling cars tended to have higher posted speeds. Towns that had gravel or dirt roads and a lot of pre-WW2 cars still on the road had lower posted speeds. Police were local and independent civic organizations of Peace Officers indebted to the public trust and not part of the police state law enforcement apparatus, so there was no incentive to fleece citizens with nuisance tickets to pad their budgets and "Must Cite" legislation.

Some speeds became determined by custom -- 25 mph in a suburban subdivision, 35 in a business district, 50 in a city limit thoroughfare, and 90 on a dedicated US highway.

The challenge is getting back to being a free country and dismantling the tyranny with which we have surrounded ourselves.

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