Post Archive

Region: Libertatem

History

Hey, let's vote on embassies with the following regions.

Philosophy 115

Texas

Gay

I vote AYE on all three.

Hallo Island wrote:Hey, let's vote on embassies with the following regions.

Philosophy 115

Texas

Gay

I vote AYE on all three.

Do we have a fifth Boardman yet?

And didn't Philosophy 115 pass, since it was 3 Ayes and 1 Abstain?

I vote aye on the last two.

Hallo Island wrote:Huh, the leftists must love Authoritarianism.

It's hard to dislike something that you adhere to so strongly.

Muh Roads, Condealism

The New United States wrote:You sure got him good.

You sure got that innocent arab good.

Pheeblan wrote:You sure got that innocent arab good.

I'd reckon that leftism and its derivatives have killed more Arabs (and other Near-Eastern ethnic and linguistic groups) than the United States ever has.

It's not like the Soviets invaded Afghanistan or anything.

And I guess the Libertarian Party must have lied in there first platform (1976), when they denounced foreign wars.

The New United States

The New United States wrote:Do we have a fifth Boardman yet?

And didn't Philosophy 115 pass, since it was 3 Ayes and 1 Abstain?

I vote aye on the last two.

American Empire, I think.

Post self-deleted by The New United States.

Kings Island wrote:It's not like the Soviets invaded Afghanistan or anything.

And I guess the Libertarian Party must have lied in there first platform (1976), when they denounced foreign wars.

Well, it's okay to invade Muslim lands when you're fighting for workers' liberation!

Hallo Island wrote:American Empire, I think.

I said that I would run for the seat but I don't think that I have been confirmed to that office.

The New United States wrote:Well, it's okay to invade Muslim lands when you're fighting for workers' liberation!

Exactly

I like Texas. They were one of the few regions to make sense of the Internationale's lulzy CAPS liberation attempt.

Not sure about Philosophy whateverthenumberis, to be fair.

Same with Gay.

I would keep the current embassy policy as neutral, with a forewarning that anyone who proposes embassies with us does so at their own military risk.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:I like Texas. They were one of the few regions to make sense of the Internationale's lulzy CAPS liberation attempt.

Not sure about Philosophy whateverthenumberis, to be fair.

Same with Gay.

The left's CAPS resolution was actually very effective, due to the clause in the repeal that said that effected members may well seek vengeance.

IE the security council sanctioned military actions against us.

Kings Island wrote:The left's CAPS resolution was actually very effective, due to the clause in the repeal that said that effected members may well seek vengeance.

IE the security council sanctioned military actions against us.

Yet it is rare for the GCRs and Defenders to act against us, thankfully. The rest of the SC are fully of feel-good socialists and lemmings.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:I would keep the current embassy policy as neutral, with a forewarning that anyone who proposes embassies with us does so at their own military risk.

Supporting human rights is neutral.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:I would keep the current embassy policy as neutral, with a forewarning that anyone who proposes embassies with us does so at their own military risk.

I'd say that the best embassy policy is one that is aggressive in establishing embassies with regions that will serve our interests abroad, but one that is cautious and conservative while doing so.

I trust that embassies Gay and Texas will both fit into the aforementioned category. I'm not as convinced about Philosophy 115, honestly.

The New United States wrote:I'd say that the best embassy policy is one that is aggressive in establishing embassies with regions that will serve our interests abroad, but one that is cautious and conservative while doing so.

I trust that embassies Gay and Texas will both fit into the aforementioned category. I'm not as convinced about Philosophy 115, honestly.

Is it because you are a Mormon? I have a feeling that it is.

Hallo Island wrote:Hey, let's vote on embassies with the following regions.

Philosophy 115

Texas

Gay

I vote AYE on all three.

Aye all 3

Hallo Island wrote:Is it because you are a Mormon? I have a feeling that it is.

If I were basing embassy choices on religious conviction, I wouldn't support embassies with Gay.

Condealism wrote:You used to consider anti-fascism your first military priority, but now our freedom-loving region is your public enemy number one.

can you drop the dorky american flag-waving propaganda for one second? "freedom-loving" jesus. you're not ronald milhouse reagan.

also, anti-fascism is The Red Fleet's primary military priority. This is evidenced by the fact that we've hit more fascist-connected regions in one night (which has led to several of them voluntarily adopting anti-fascism and thanking us for bringing their problematic embassies to their attention) than Libertatem's military has in the entire past year.

If you want to know why we don't attack more fascist regions, then I'll have to refer you to the fact that most fascist regions have non-executive delegates. Comparably, you guys are soft targets, so hitting regions connected to you allows us to keep our troops sharp and our energy and morale high.

Condealism wrote:Listen closely, because this is the most significant military advice I've ever given to anyone: If you don't change your strategy, you are never going to win. I don't mean to say that we'll be the ones to destroy you - I mean that you're hurting yourself more than you are us. You're trying to beat us at our own game - you're stooping to the level of a motley crew of capitalistic freedom fighters and spending your resources trying to supress our allies. And that suits us just fine - we're the ones who wanted to fight you.

Hitting as many of your allies as humanly possible and driving down morale on your side (to the point that you have to warn regions that building embassies with you is a security risk!) is great for The Red Fleet/KPA. The fact that you think we're somehow "losing" through this strategy is mind-boggling, considering you apparently lead IRU's military.

Also the fact that this is the "most significant military advice" you've ever given to anyone is hilariously sad.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:I would keep the current embassy policy as neutral, with a forewarning that anyone who proposes embassies with us does so at their own military risk.

*snickers*

Kings Island wrote:The left's CAPS resolution was actually very effective, due to the clause in the repeal that said that effected members may well seek vengeance.

IE the security council sanctioned military actions against us.

I'm sure they noticed that, but considering how long we've been fighting, it seems to me that the SC's prevailing opinion was "okay, fine, try to destroy them or whatever - now stop wasting our time."

Honestly, TI is no more able to strike against us than they were at any point in our history. They've resented us for ever having declared war on their relig- er, ideology, and for a few months there, it seemed they had the advantage. I'll never understand why they squandered their upper hand by engaging their forces against ours on our terms.

Condealism wrote:Honestly, TI is no more able to strike against us than they were at any point in our history.

1) because TI doesn't have a military

2) because you don't have an executive delegate. indeed, we are truly stymied by game mechanics!!!

Next month, can the featured book be The Road to Serfdom by Fredrick Hayes?

Yelsim wrote:If you want to know why we don't attack more fascist regions, then I'll have to refer you to the fact that most fascist regions have non-executive delegates. Comparably, you guys are soft targets, so hitting regions connected to you allows us to keep our troops sharp and our energy and morale high.

Hello? Have you not noticed? We can say the same for you!

Why do you think our military has been so disinterested in fascist targets? They're holed up in their caves and are notoriously bad at making friends. As long as you're picking fights with libertarians, we're more than happy to show you and your "comrades" up time and time again. That's the way this works... frankly, I'm surprised you haven't once considered the obvious solution!

Yelsim wrote:Hitting as many of your allies as humanly possible and driving down morale on your side (to the point that you have to warn regions that building embassies with you is a security risk!) is great for The Red Fleet/KPA. The fact that you think we're somehow "losing" through this strategy is mind-boggling, considering you apparently lead IRU's military.

Also the fact that this is the "most significant military advice" you've ever given to anyone is hilariously sad.

But that's just it - you are losing, on multiple fronts. You're ignoring what is supposedly your top priority by chasing us around, and you honestly think the fash isn't in recovery mode right now? You're invading libertarian regions out of spite, and you think this isn't raising red flags within the interregional community? You think you've won, but all you've done is slow both our sides down.

And I must thank you for it. Otherwise, we probably wouldn't have stood a chance... I'm baffled that you let us bait you into our preferred method of warfare.

I can definitely see a SC condemnation of TRF and NK if this sort of vengeance raiding continues, which would of course benefit us.

Rateria

Kings Island wrote:I can definitely see a SC condemnation of TRF and NK if this sort of vengeance raiding continues, which would of course benefit us.

Minerva wrote a successful condemnation of NK, which was very quickly repealed by the very people that had just voted for it.

The WA is a sad, sad monster.

Rateria, Condealism

Yelsim wrote:1) because TI doesn't have a military

2) because you don't have an executive delegate. indeed, we are truly stymied by game mechanics!!!

1. Red Fleet. Rumor has it that's *all* TI's packing these days.

2. You should have paid us a visit at, mmm, basically any point in time before last December. A tag raid would have been easy for you.

Condealism wrote:Hello? Have you not noticed? We can say the same for you!

yes, we have mourned such crushing losses as the tag raid on Islamic Comintern

Condealism wrote:Why do you think our military has been so disinterested in fascist targets?

do you mean beyond the fact that you have tried to work with them on multiple, recent occasions and therefore have a compelling interest in not pissing them off?

Condealism wrote:As long as you're picking fights with libertarians, we're more than happy to show you and your "comrades" up time and time again.

you sure did a great job of showing us up in Communist China, TICU, United Socialist Republics, Zentari, Slavija, New Republica, and Libertarians! that CAPS victory is almost a year old, and it's getting stale fast!

Condealism wrote:But that's just it - you are losing, on multiple fronts.

l m a o

Condealism wrote:You're ignoring what is supposedly your top priority by chasing us around, and you honestly think the fash isn't in recovery mode right now?

we're not ignoring them. we know which fascist regions are vulnerable. we're just cleaning shop right now. trust me, we aren't abandoning our antifascist roots by any stretch of the imagination. any thoughts to the contrary are ill-informed at best.

Condealism wrote:You're invading libertarian regions out of spite, and you think this isn't raising red flags within the interregional community? You think you've won, but all you've done is slow both our sides down.

no, actually, I've been hard at work in speeding our side up. you might notice that we're able to move with incredible precision, and that knowledge is being shared with several leftist commanders.

and I'm pretty sure the interregional community knows the terminology in SC 181 that gives us legal sanction to engage in reprisal attacks.

Condealism wrote:I'm baffled that you let us bait you into our preferred method of warfare.

I'll just leave this quote from IRC: "Condealism's preferred method of warfare: Losing over and over :P"

Huh the embassy gay is... GAYYYYYYYYYY

Okay, don't take my word for it. Didn't expect you to - I just thought you might be interested in preventing another CAPS or IS from happening, is all, and it seemed to me that you were lacking in the strategy department.

Explains why our rag-tag bunch of capitalists, conservatives, and moderates has been so effective against your supposedly well-oiled machine, at any rate. To think that the solution to all your logistical problems is staring you in the face, and you're quicker to deny it than you are the Holomodor.

how dare I agree with most historians in the world who say that Stalin did not intentionally starve Ukrainians. i must be some kind of monster to agree with such scholars as R. W. Davies and Stephen Wheatcroft (who [nation=Pevvania] also agrees with) and not the peer-reviewed Libertatem-approved Bulgarian Friend.

Kings Island wrote:I can definitely see a SC condemnation of TRF and NK if this sort of vengeance raiding continues, which would of course benefit us.

Rather not glorify them.

Yelsim wrote:

you sure did a great job of showing us up in Communist China, TICU, United Socialist Republics, Zentari, Slavija, New Republica, and Libertarians! that CAPS victory is almost a year old, and it's getting stale fast!

And yet you proposed a SC resolution way after the fact.

"

Muh Roads wrote:And yet you proposed a SC resolution way after the fact.

which passed with far more approval than I could have ever imagined. far more support for Liberate CAPS and Repeal Liberate CAPS than Minerva's resolution, anyway.

and y'all refounding it gave us all the justification we needed to continue attacking. NOW WHO HAS SPRUNG THE TRAP???

Rateria

Condealism wrote:1. Red Fleet. Rumor has it that's *all* TI's packing these days.

The Red Fleet is not a branch of The Internationale, so not quite. just because there's historically been a close relationship between the Fleet and TI doesn't mean it's TI's military.

Condealism wrote:2. You should have paid us a visit at, mmm, basically any point in time before last December. A tag raid would have been easy for you.

well, TI's delegate is executive right now. if y'all were the stunning anti-communist force you pretend to be in your long-winded stump speeches you could raid us any day.

besides, we didn't even have to raid you for you to permanently turn off your executive delegate AND lock the region when your delegate is away for an extended period of time. the amount of paranoia we are capable of creating in here is kind of hilarious

Yelsim wrote:how dare I agree with most historians in the world who say that Stalin did not intentionally starve Ukrainians. i must be some kind of monster to agree with such scholars as R. W. Davies and Stephen Wheatcroft (who [nation=Pevvania] also agrees with) and not the peer-reviewed Libertatem-approved Bulgarian Friend.

I'm still sticking with the fact that someone from a former eastern block country probably knows more about communism than some socially awkward edgy teenager who wants to fit in by not fitting in.

Miencraft

Hallo Island wrote:I'm still sticking with the fact that someone from a former eastern block country probably knows more about communism than some socially awkward edgy teenager who wants to fit in by not fitting in.

i'm not socially awkward or a teenager though :(

sorry to burst your bubble bud

Yelsim wrote:I'll just leave this quote from IRC: "Condealism's preferred method of warfare: Losing over and over :P"

I said that :)

Condealism wrote:Okay, don't take my word for it. Didn't expect you to - I just thought you might be interested in preventing another CAPS or IS from happening, is all, and it seemed to me that you were lacking in the strategy department.

Explains why our rag-tag bunch of capitalists, conservatives, and moderates has been so effective against your supposedly well-oiled machine, at any rate. To think that the solution to all your logistical problems is staring you in the face, and you're quicker to deny it than you are the Holomodor.

lol. Libs little scruffy ragamuffins consider barely being able to hold on to the few barely significant regions they have left a success. Keep that bar low enough, and you'll always feel like winners! ;)

http://tinyurl.com/q8oygyl

Right-Winged Nation wrote:Huh the embassy gay is... GAYYYYYYYYYY

Are you stoned?

Post self-deleted by The New United States.

Your source does not say that "Stalin did not intentionally starve Ukrainians." It says that he did, in fact, "intentionally let starving people die," but that there is not enough evidence to prove that he was targeting "specifically the ethnic Ukranians."

Really, the point you're trying to make is for naught. He intentionally starved a very large number of people, resulting in the deaths of millions. Arguing the semantics of whether or not it should be considered ethnic-cleansing is really just lessening the weight of the undeniable fact that that scumbag intentionally killed millions of people. Who cares if we can't prove he was targeting "specifically the ethnic Ukranians?"

Miencraft, Hallo Island, Rateria

The New United States wrote:Your source does not say that "Stalin did not intentionally starve Ukrainians." It says that he did, in fact, "intentionally let starving people die," but that there is not enough evidence to prove that he was targeting "specifically the ethnic Ukranians."

Really, the point you're trying to make is for naught. He intentionally starved a very large number of people, resulting in the deaths of millions. Arguing the semantics of whether or not it should be considered ethnic-cleansing is really just lessening the weight of the undeniable fact that that scumbag intentionally killed millions of people. Who cares if we can't prove he was targeting "specifically the ethnic Ukranians?"

because the entire original argument you guys were trying to make was that Stalin intentionally killed Ukranians (which is what the Holodomor genocide question is all about - whether or not the 1933 famine was intentional and an act of genocide). When y'all lost that argument, you turned to ad hominem attacks against me as a Holocaust/Holodomor denier because that was easier than admitting you were wrong.

Trf Submarine Group I wrote:because the entire original argument you guys were trying to make was that Stalin intentionally killed Ukranians (which is what the Holodomor genocide question is all about - whether or not the 1933 famine was intentional and an act of genocide). When y'all lost that argument, you turned to ad hominem attacks against me as a Holocaust/Holodomor denier because that was easier than admitting you were wrong.

You're not addressing what he said. Your source stated that he intentionally let millions die, but that he did not intentionally target Ukrainians. The point is that the source you provided shows that he intentionally targeted class enemies, if not specifically Ukrainians.

Rateria

Hallo Island wrote:Are you stoned?

I actually did blaze while listening to dark side of the moon but shhhh

Trf Submarine Group I wrote:because the entire original argument you guys were trying to make was that Stalin intentionally killed Ukranians (which is what the Holodomor genocide question is all about - whether or not the 1933 famine was intentional and an act of genocide). When y'all lost that argument, you turned to ad hominem attacks against me as a Holocaust/Holodomor denier because that was easier than admitting you were wrong.

Okay and the color of an orange isn't orange 😒😒😒😒

Right-Winged Nation wrote:I actually did blaze while listening to dark side of the moon but shhhh

Called it

Miencraft, Right-Winged Nation

Kings Island wrote:You're not addressing what he said. Your source stated that he intentionally let millions die, but that he did not intentionally target Ukrainians. The point is that the source you provided shows that he intentionally targeted class enemies, if not specifically Ukrainians.

and no one here addressed what I said or anything else in those sources except the cherry-picked bits that supported your pre-conceived notions about the 1933 famine (which is probably why Pevvania cited Davies/Wheatcroft in the first place. frantically googling your argument during the argument is a good way to undermine yourself) and constantly moved the goalposts. the original argument was whether Stalin did it intentionally. he didn't. no serious historian says he did. since you can't admit you were wrong about that you move the goalposts to argue something else.

Trf Submarine Group I wrote:and no one here addressed what I said or anything else in those sources except the cherry-picked bits that supported your pre-conceived notions about the 1933 famine (which is probably why Pevvania cited Davies/Wheatcroft in the first place. frantically googling your argument during the argument is a good way to undermine yourself) and constantly moved the goalposts. the original argument was whether Stalin did it intentionally. he didn't. no serious historian says he did. since you can't admit you were wrong about that you move the goalposts to argue something else.

And the color of an orange isn't orange

Trf Submarine Group I wrote:and no one here addressed what I said or anything else in those sources except the cherry-picked bits that supported your pre-conceived notions about the 1933 famine (which is probably why Pevvania cited Davies/Wheatcroft in the first place. frantically googling your argument during the argument is a good way to undermine yourself) and constantly moved the goalposts. the original argument was whether Stalin did it intentionally. he didn't. no serious historian says he did. since you can't admit you were wrong about that you move the goalposts to argue something else.

...Except that your own source says that he did. Just not specifically against Ukrainians.

Kings Island wrote:...Except that your own source says that he did. Just not specifically against Ukrainians.

Which he did target

Kings Island wrote:...Except that your own source says that he did. Just not specifically against Ukrainians.

no, he didn't. he did not manufacture the famine. no reputable source says that, including Davies/Wheatcroft. "intentionally let[ting] starving people die" is not the same thing as "intentionally caused a famine to starve people to death"

like do you people seriously think stalin is some kind of bizarre wizard bogeyman who can manufacture an entire famine to murder millions of people? do you realize how absolutely preposterous that is?

Trf Submarine Group I wrote:no, he didn't. he did not manufacture the famine. no reputable source says that, including Davies/Wheatcroft. "intentionally let[ting] starving people die" is not the same thing as "intentionally caused a famine to starve people to death"

I compete in Lincoln Douglas debate in my local circuit mate, so I can argue semantics with you all day. "Intentionally letting starving people die" implies that Stalin had the means to alleviate their suffering, letting essentially meaning allowing within the context.

Kings Island wrote:I compete in Lincoln Douglas debate in my local circuit mate, so I can argue semantics with you all day. "Intentionally letting starving people die" implies that Stalin had the means to alleviate their suffering, letting essentially meaning allowing within the context.
actions such as rejection of outside aid, confiscation of all household foodstuffs, and restriction of population movement are actions that suggest stalin planned this.

Right-Winged Nation wrote:actions such as rejection of outside aid, confiscation of all household foodstuffs, and restriction of population movement are actions that suggest stalin planned this.

clearly you know more about this than renowned scholars in the fields of Slavic studies and sociology including people who have written extensively on famines.

weird that no one questions Tauger's research on the famines in India but he MUST have been wrong re: Ukraine because he didn't blame Stalin!!!

Trf Submarine Group I wrote:clearly you know more about this than renowned scholars in the fields of Slavic studies and sociology including people who have written extensively on famines.

weird that no one questions Tauger's research on the famines in India but he MUST have been wrong re: Ukraine because he didn't blame Stalin!!!

Listen here, we know this a personal hero of yours and that is fine, but we are not blind and we do not deny historical fact. So if you want to continue to do so no one can stop you

Right-Winged Nation wrote:Listen here, we know this a personal hero of yours and that is fine, but we are not blind and we do not deny historical fact. So if you want to continue to do so no one can stop you

lmao

Trf Submarine Group I wrote:lmao

We tend to laugh our ass off at you too

Miencraft, Kings Island, Condealism

Yelsim wrote:"which passed with far more approval than I could have ever imagined. far more support for Liberate CAPS and Repeal Liberate CAPS than Minerva's resolution, anyway.

and y'all refounding it gave us all the justification we needed to continue attacking. NOW WHO HAS SPRUNG THE TRAP???

You know what? You're absolutely right. That is a thing that happened. To recap:

You asked the SC to give CAPS to you six months after we took it, and then we refounded it without incident. Then you asked the SC for permission to attack - pardon, continue attacking regions affiliated with Libertatem and REATO, they gave it to you, and now you are proceesing to do so.

And you mean to tell me that you are the one in control here?

When I look at your comments, I see someone who is constantly trying to justify himself, and his beliefs, to the world. I can see that in a positive light; humility, after all, is a virtue, and the implicit requisite for unity and cohesion in a hypothetical communist society is deference to one's peers. You're just trying to be a good comrade. You want what is best for your friends, and wish so very greatly for your enemies to get what's coming to them.

Look at us. We are your enemies, Misley, and I feel it only fair to warn you that your efforts to explain yourself to us are in vain. But you were ready to accept that, were you not? You chose us to be your nemeses - you even wrote two SC proposals, which passed, clear for all to see, that you oppose what we do, and will stop at nothing to destroy us. Because that's how the game works, am I right?

So, please. Do continue to flip-flop between calling The Red Fleet a multiregional organization and the military branch of The Internationale. We like the ambiguity. Do continue to justify placing our destruction above that of the fascists to your comrades. We enjoy watching you betray one another in the name of leftist unity and international socialism. Do continue to attack the innocent and bully those who are willing to leap into the fray. We are honor-bound to stop such villainy.

But you'll certainly be at it for a damn long time if you keep it up like that. Honestly, I've given you so many hints on how exactly to defeat us that I should be court-martialed, and as I expected, you are totally oblivious. So I'll only give you one more: To win, and win indefinitely, you have to be willing to do the one thing Libertatem has never done, never came close to doing, and never will do for as long as it exists.

Oh, and since you're our enemy, please don't be pathetic. While we're more on the side of moral integrity, you must understand that to the interregional community, image is everything. We're not just prone to having prominent tyrants hate us publicly; we're counting on it. Thank you.

Kings Island, Pevvania, The New United States, Rateria

We were, and always will be, a ragtag group of vagabonds, utilizing stealth and deception to overpower larger regions and bring totalitarianism to it's knees. The World Assembly can call us terrorists, but they are afraid to see us how we really are: freedom fighters.

Miencraft, Kings Island, Pevvania, The New United States, Condealism

And seriously, apologize to the people of Fort Chernyi, or at the very least give a sincere show of gratitude to Ronacria for making your victory possible. That man let you have what you wanted and was willing to let bygones be bygones, even though he really didn't have to.

Though some are resentful that the authoritarian left has once again invaded their home, they are all willing to refrain from causing you further trouble and accept your ludicrous definition of justice. Embrace their generosity - that one simple act of standing aside was a greater show of leftist unity and solidarity than you could ever hope to accomplish.

I should make a 500 page novel off of you Condealism.

Ankha, Rateria, Condealism

Wait, the WA called us terrorists? When was this? :P

Condealism wrote:So, please. Do continue to flip-flop between calling The Red Fleet a multiregional organization and the military branch of The Internationale.

i don't flipflop between these at all, because TRF isn't the military branch of TI. I have never called TRF the military branch of TI.

but thanks for the college sophomore "I've taken an intro to psych class!" armchair evaluation of my motivations on the internet browser video game Jennifer Government: NationStates by Max Barry!!

Condealism wrote:To win, and win indefinitely, you have to be willing to do the one thing Libertatem has never done, never came close to doing, and never will do for as long as it exists.

be good at military gameplay?

Trf Submarine Group I wrote:be good at military gameplay?

See, it's that kind of remark that assures me that you don't know the answer, and wouldn't be willing to carry it out even if you did.

And I hope I'm not unsettling you too greatly - this is indeed just a game, and the fact that you hammered that point home suggests that you wanted to make that very clear. Thing is, was that supposed to be for my benefit or yours?

Miencraft

You can take Libertarians off the list of REATO members, because it's now under the control of this 'fool' ;)

Always so serious around here.

Rateria

Teksi wrote:You can take Libertarians off the list of REATO members, because it's now under the control of this 'fool' ;)

REATO should probably just be shelved, shouldn't it?

It effectively only really has one member, this region. And its been that way all along.

IRU doesn't really count as a full region imo.

The Hyatt Islands is a founderless WA hole that you've spent over a month defending.

Gay Equality never even really agreed to be a member.

Minerva's puppet region "Libertarians" lasted how long before we took it?

After we finish up securing AAA & UCR we're gonna have to refocus our efforts on the nazis & traditional fash.

There isn't much more we can do to you until your founder CTE's.

Good luck with whatever terrible reprisals you have planned for us, maybe more tag raids on empty regions twice removed from us?

The Monkey Brigades Ii wrote:REATO should probably just be shelved, shouldn't it?

It effectively only really has one member, this region. And its been that way all along.

IRU doesn't really count as a full region imo.

The Hyatt Islands is a founderless WA hole that you've spent over a month defending.

Gay Equality never even really agreed to be a member.

Minerva's puppet region "Libertarians" lasted how long before we took it?

After we finish up securing AAA & UCR we're gonna have to refocus our efforts on the nazis & traditional fash.

There isn't much more we can do to you until your founder CTE's.

Good luck with whatever terrible reprisals you have planned for us, maybe more tag raids on empty regions twice removed from us?

Well, like eight different people have access to our founder account, so that could be a long wait.

Miencraft

Hallo Island wrote:Well, like eight different people have access to our founder account, so that could be a long wait.

Or it could be shorter. The moderators explicitly discourage nation-sharing. If any one of those eight different people does something stupid enough to get deleted, then say goodbye to your founder.

I don't login to NS for a day and a half and there is a serious amendment to the constitution to establish an official state religion, the Church of Roads? Are you ok, Libertatem?

Miencraft, Muh Roads, Rateria

Humpheria wrote:I don't login to NS for a day and a half and there is a serious amendment to the constitution to establish an official state religion, the Church of Roads? Are you ok, Libertatem?

I figure it'll be struck down immediately and we'll get a somewhat amusing addition to the miscellaneous section of the laws page.

Kings Island, The New United States, Muh Roads

Post self-deleted by The New United States.

Humpheria wrote:I don't login to NS for a day and a half and there is a serious amendment to the constitution to establish an official state religion, the Church of Roads? Are you ok, Libertatem?

Oh, son of perdition! Darest thou blaspheme the Holy Church of Roads?

Miencraft, Kings Island, Muh Roads, Rateria

Post self-deleted by Miencraft.

Humpheria wrote:I don't login to NS for a day and a half and there is a serious amendment to the constitution to establish an official state religion, the Church of Roads? Are you ok, Libertatem?

Praise be to He who hath granted us the Power of Roads.

Kings Island, The New United States, Muh Roads

Humpheria wrote:I don't login to NS for a day and a half and there is a serious amendment to the constitution to establish an official state religion, the Church of Roads? Are you ok, Libertatem?

Repent or lose the favor of Roads! The region is better then ever and will prosper under the blessing of Roads!

Kings Island, The New United States, Muh Roads

Lulz. Commies are celebrating over invading an "an"-com region that cut formal military ties with us in January, and attacking UCR, an enemy region that established embassies with The Internationale and Das Kommune. It seems that the economic illiterates are so desperate these days that they've turned to invading comrade regions in order to gain even the faintest sense of victory against their most persistent enemies.

The individuals who come here to harass us are clearly both very angry people who feel personally agitated by our continued, if infrequent, major successes in the war, and likely hold inferiority complexes at their lack of genuine territorial success against REATO and the LAF. [nation=short]Misley[/nation] himself admitted to me in Conservative League that their successes against us are limited to tag raids and minor refounds.

Although I do not like their continued harassment of our citizens, which I have filed a report to the moderators about, I welcome gloating amongst themselves if it makes them feel superior, so that the next time we wipe them out in a military operation, the victory will be all the sweeter.

Enjoy your quasi-victories while they last, anarcho-statists and Stalin fetishists. We're playing fair, we're playing respectfully and we're playing to win, which makes us the better folks and ultimately the better soldiers.

Miencraft, Kings Island, The New United States, Muh Roads, Rateria, Condealism, The American Empire In Libertatem

Muh Roads wrote:Those who don't obey Muh Roads doctrine get the hose.

So saith Roads. Amen.

Muh Roads

Nay on ROADS. A state religion is not near enough commemoration for this living legend, and I'm ashamed that you guys can't think any bigger ;P

Condealism wrote:Nay on ROADS. A state religion is not near enough commemoration for this living legend, and I'm ashamed that you guys can't think any bigger ;P

Apostate! I pray that you shall be the first to recieve excommunication from the sanctified Libertatem!

:P

The New United States wrote:Apostate! I pray that you shall be the first to recieve excommunication from the sanctified Libertatem!

:P

How dare you dirty your tongue with such blashphemous talk?

It is not "Libertatem"; it is Roadstertatem, home of the Capitalist Muh Roadsters. Or, at least, that's kind of what our enemies call us... out of fear. Yes, definitely out of fear, and reverence of our Roads.

Miencraft, Kings Island, The New United States, Muh Roads, Rateria

I'm only sort of mildly pissed that I couldn't take over UCR for myself.

Muh Roads

Republic Of Minerva wrote:I'm only sort of mildly pissed that I couldn't take over UCR for myself.

Well, c'est la vie.

Condealism wrote:How dare you dirty your tongue with such blashphemous talk?

It is not "Libertatem"; it is Roadstertatem, home of the Capitalist Muh Roadsters. Or, at least, that's kind of what our enemies call us... out of fear. Yes, definitely out of fear, and reverence of our Roads.

It is evident that you have stumbled away from the Haqq, my brother. Wallahi, the Lord Roads must have dominion over Libertatem and over NationStates, akhi.

This is evidenced by the fact that Roads has liked the post containing the ROADS Amendment. This shows that the will of our Lord Roads is that he may excercise his just sovereignty over Libertatem and, indeed, over NationStates.

If this is not enough, allow me to analyze revelation, as given through Roads:

Muh Roads wrote:Those who don't obey Muh Roads doctrine get the hose.

Now, how may we determine what Roads is commanding of us? What does it mean to "get the hose," so saith Roads? This is not metaphorical, wallahi. This is a physical action that can be manifested in only two ways: 1) Physically hosing someone, which is unlikely, given the context in which this revelation was given, and 2) Banjecting heretics.

The ability to Banject heretics necessitates Roads' control over the state of the region. Therefore, it is entirely just to make the Holy Church of Roads the state religion of Roadstertatem, and is, in fact, necessary, as proven by the holy word of Roads.

I pray that you may once again find the Haqq, that you may repent, and that you may realize that there is no Road but Roads.

Peace be upon you, akhi.

Kings Island, Muh Roads

I suppose as with all religions, it's all in the interpretation.

Post self-deleted by Miencraft.

Muh Roads wrote:I suppose as with all religions, it's all in the interpretation.

And now to wildly misinterpret this and preach the word of Roads.

Tyrinth, Kings Island, Muh Roads, Rateria, Condealism

The New United States wrote:It is evident that you have stumbled away from the Haqq, my brother. Wallahi, the Lord Roads must have dominion over Libertatem and over NationStates, akhi.

This is evidenced by the fact that Roads has liked the post containing the ROADS Amendment. This shows that the will of our Lord Roads is that he may excercise his just sovereignty over Libertatem and, indeed, over NationStates.

If this is not enough, allow me to analyze revelation, as given through Roads:

Now, how may we determine what Roads is commanding of us? What does it mean to "get the hose," so saith Roads? This is not metaphorical, wallahi. This is a physical action that can be manifested in only two ways: 1) Physically hosing someone, which is unlikely, given the context in which this revelation was given, and 2) Banjecting heretics.

The ability to Banject heretics necessitates Roads' control over the state of the region. Therefore, it is entirely just to make the Holy Church of Roads the state religion of Roadstertatem, and is, in fact, necessary, as proven by the holy word of Roads.

I pray that you may once again find the Haqq, that you may repent, and that you may realize that there is no Road but Roads.

Peace be upon you, akhi.

As is the case with the post containing the ROADS Amendment, Our Lord Roads hath liked my post as an act of Ris mercy. Re seeth the way and truth, and speaketh to us so that we may follow in Ris tiresteps.

Re hath remained silent regarding the lengths we must go to in giving honor to Rim because vanity and pride haveth no place on the Road of Roads. While you desireth a Church of Roads within "Libertatem", I sayeth tis not enough. I sayeth the glory of Roadstertatem must outreach the vastness of MuhtionStates, outshine the sun, and outperform the rituals of the wicked. Verily I speaketh onto you, as a prophet of Our Lord and Eternal Leader Roads, that you must hearken to the coming of Ris inevitable dominion of all traversible land - a mere church is but an obstacle in the building of The Great Roads.

Kings Island, Muh Roads

Republic Of Minerva wrote:I'm only sort of mildly pissed that I couldn't take over UCR for myself.

Who cares? They unintentionally did us a favour taking them out. The Reds invaded a Stalinist region that was both at war with Libertatem and formerly had embassies with The Internationale and numerous other socialist regions. If anything we should thank them, because their actions have benefited us, even if the benefits are small and symbolic more than anything else.

Kings Island, The New United States, Rateria, Condealism

What happened to Independent States of America? In early 2014, after I fired him from the cabinet, he'd moved to the IRU and was gearing up for a presidential run. And then he just stopped playing and got deleted due to inactivity. Does anybody from the old days know why he CTE'd?

The Obama Administration supports occupational licensing reform!

http://www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2015/07/31/citing-adam-smith-and-milton-friedman-obamas-economic-advisors-back-occupational-licensing-reform/

Post by Pheeblan suppressed by a moderator.

Odd that you'd give one of your enemies credit for helping you in the only significant victory you've ever had against us.

([region=Congress of Armed Proletarian States]) Funny that you expunged TCB from the WFE when you owe the entire victory to them. Guess it hurt when they turned on you.

Also interesting that you held embassies with this enemy region. Had them in REATO for a time, apparent members of "[region=Antista]", and thanked them in a number of other regions for their help in taking them.

Much easier to ignore reality and create your own ;)

You'd save us a lot of trouble if you'd just let your "allies" know that you, at best, didn't give a crap about them before we go through the trouble of raiding them.

ISA's account still exists..

A3 hardly helped us though.

Herpaderp, they sent like 3~5 people and then withdrew in the middle of the CAPS raid for no reason. CFN helped us more than that. And they really sent nobody on most other raids, save perhaps one other that I forgot, nor did they really help us when I asked for reinforcements.

Our embassies were mostly out of convenience than anything.

Condealism

Pevvania wrote:The Obama Administration supports occupational licensing reform!

http://www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2015/07/31/citing-adam-smith-and-milton-friedman-obamas-economic-advisors-back-occupational-licensing-reform/

Great. The barriers to entry are unreal already.

The Obama Administration, in my opinion, will be fairly lukewarm from a libertarian perspective viewed from the future. There is the stupid - like endorsing free college and stimulus spending, and then there are things such as his free trade proposals, licensing reform, gay marriage (although that was more of Congress...), etc. I think I can say that he is slightly preferable to Bush, even as a libertarian.

Obama, as the political compass says, is a man of very fixed principles.

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