Post Archive

Region: Libertatem

History

Pevvania wrote:I've directed [nation=short]Liberosia[/nation] to close a few more of our property embassies.

Nice.

Pevvania wrote:I've directed [nation=short]Liberosia[/nation] to close a few more of our property embassies.

Good plan

I've asked this before, but I'll ask it again.

If you could do one thing to advance the cause of liberty, just one, whether it be tax reform or ending the Drug War, what would it be?

Pevvania wrote:I've directed [nation=short]Liberosia[/nation] to close a few more of our property embassies.

Why.

The Neo-Confederate States Of America wrote:Why.

So that embassies can be transferred to Reato. I'd like all Libertatem embassies to be just alliances, partnerships, etc.

Pevvania wrote:I've asked this before, but I'll ask it again.

If you could do one thing to advance the cause of liberty, just one, whether it be tax reform or ending the Drug War, what would it be?

Tax reform via repeal of the income tax. If you cut off the means of to growing the leviathan all else will fall into line.

Pevvania wrote:I've asked this before, but I'll ask it again.

If you could do one thing to advance the cause of liberty, just one, whether it be tax reform or ending the Drug War, what would it be?

Tax reform

Ending Drug war

Abolishing the two Party system

Well, you can't abolish it. Ideally, it would be illegal, but you just can't. It is not a legal statute, it's not a law, it's just an ideal. You can't abolish an ideal. You can't tell people that they can't vote for one of two people, it's un-libertarian.

Two party system

Humpheria wrote:Well, you can't abolish it. Ideally, it would be illegal, but you just can't. It is not a legal statute, it's not a law, it's just an ideal. You can't abolish an ideal. You can't tell people that they can't vote for one of two people, it's un-libertarian.

You can get rid of all the stupid restrictions, such as needing a 5% vote to participate in debates.

True, but you can't abolish the system. The only way to get people to vote third party, is to convince people to.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:You can get rid of all the stupid restrictions, such as needing a 5% vote to participate in debates.

This is what I meant this is a reason why it's a two party system. Because no one pays attention to anything other than debates....

Of course you can't abolish it. You can only counter the things that make it that way.

I'd terminate the NSA.

I found this quote extremely funny.

"Grammar is a tool of the bourgeoisie and most attempts to police it by self-professed "grammar nazis" are little more than thinly veiled drops of pseudo-intellectualism mired in the sentiments of classism and racism designed to marginalize and hand-wave the opinions of groups that lack the ability to or refuse to express themselves in a nice little pre-approved format or were born into an area or socio-economic/racial/cultural group who are, along with their dialect, considered to be "unintelligent" and not worthy of proper respect. Such attempts to bully said groups out of expressing themselves are intolerable and therefore, to that extent, I have decided to make my posts the vanguard for the liberation of language from elitism."

The Time Alliance wrote:I found this quote extremely funny.

"Grammar is a tool of the bourgeoisie and most attempts to police it by self-professed "grammar nazis" are little more than thinly veiled drops of pseudo-intellectualism mired in the sentiments of classism and racism designed to marginalize and hand-wave the opinions of groups that lack the ability to or refuse to express themselves in a nice little pre-approved format or were born into an area or socio-economic/racial/cultural group who are, along with their dialect, considered to be "unintelligent" and not worthy of proper respect. Such attempts to bully said groups out of expressing themselves are intolerable and therefore, to that extent, I have decided to make my posts the vanguard for the liberation of language from elitism."

Lol, Where did you find that?

I would promote an agrarian economy and counter-industrialize the country. It is in cities where one can be seen the most.

The Time Alliance wrote:I found this quote extremely funny.

"Grammar is a tool of the bourgeoisie and most attempts to police it by self-professed "grammar nazis" are little more than thinly veiled drops of pseudo-intellectualism mired in the sentiments of classism and racism designed to marginalize and hand-wave the opinions of groups that lack the ability to or refuse to express themselves in a nice little pre-approved format or were born into an area or socio-economic/racial/cultural group who are, along with their dialect, considered to be "unintelligent" and not worthy of proper respect. Such attempts to bully said groups out of expressing themselves are intolerable and therefore, to that extent, I have decided to make my posts the vanguard for the liberation of language from elitism."

This is the most idiotic thing I have ever read! All that people need is good grammar! Without grammar, language would be nonsensical and/or far more complicated than one think.

Muh Roads wrote:Lol, Where did you find that?

A Member of the NSG forums....You need to get on those debate forums....

White Anglo Saxon Protestants wrote:This is the most idiotic thing I have ever read! All that people need is good grammar! Without grammar, language would be nonsensical and/or far more complicated than one think.

I found it quite a good read. It made me sees that I can no into bourgeoisie with no good grammmr......

It was extremely funny.

White Anglo Saxon Protestants wrote:I would promote an agrarian economy and counter-industrialize the country. It is in cities where one can be seen the most.

Why would you Counter-Industrialize anything? Industrialization is the way to advance into the future. If were to stop Industrializing things what would happen to all those workers? I mean I like the Idea of Placing Industry and Farming as equal importance. I believe you can't have one without the other in today's world.

The Time Alliance wrote:Why would you Counter-Industrialize anything? Industrialization is the way to advance into the future. If were to stop Industrializing things what would happen to all those workers? I mean I like the Idea of Placing Industry and Farming as equal importance. I believe you can't have one without the other in today's world.

http://tinypic.com/r/23jpqa9/8

Muh Roads wrote:http://tinypic.com/r/23jpqa9/8

How?

Humpheria wrote:Well, you can't abolish it. Ideally, it would be illegal, but you just can't. It is not a legal statute, it's not a law, it's just an ideal. You can't abolish an ideal. You can't tell people that they can't vote for one of two people, it's un-libertarian.

I would at least make it so that third parties at least have a chance by ending all political party influence on media and giving all parties equal coverage. It is a crime on its own to make people think that they only have 2 choices. Most americans probably only think there is 2 party choices. But because they control most of the media its really unfair for third parties. It's indefensible.

I would also end Drug war and legalize marijuana. There are no real health threats with marijuana and there a re far more benefits. And if the government hates it that much, they can just tax it. Seriously get over it fundamentalist conservatives. It's just stupid.

I would also employ huge penalties for racism. Like, giant fines and even jail time for using derogatory terms towards all people. And all cops must pass a test proving they are not racially biased at all. Same things for women. I really get pissed off when I hear about a woman getting paid less for the same job a man does. Pay should be decided by performance. Not gender. All the "women belong in the kitchen" stuff is annoying too and those jokes kind of make me mad, simply because it degrades women. This may seem radical, but I think Islam should be banned because of this, or at least changed to where women are equal to men. The entire religion totally disgraces women and I feel really bad when I see muslim women in public with their entire bodies covered.

White Anglo Saxon Protestants wrote:I would promote an agrarian economy and counter-industrialize the country. It is in cities where one can be seen the most.

Worked pretty well for Pol Pot... :-S

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge_period_(1975%E2%80%931979)#Societal_transformation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge#Life_under_Khmer_Rouge_power

Funkytopia wrote:Worked pretty well for Pol Pot... :-S

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge_period_(1975%E2%80%931979)#Societal_transformation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge#Life_under_Khmer_Rouge_power

I take it back. I just wanted to see the ideals of a free Southern society, like the Antebellum South without all the controversial stuff... >.>

Ronald Reagan And Rick Grimes wrote:I would also employ huge penalties for racism. Like, giant fines and even jail time for using derogatory terms towards all people.

So feck the first amendment?

Ronald Reagan And Rick Grimes wrote:And all cops must pass a test proving they are not racially biased at all.

I think some police already have to go through something like this...

Ronald Reagan And Rick Grimes wrote:Same things for women. I really get pissed off when I hear about a woman getting paid less for the same job a man does. Pay should be decided by performance. Not gender. All the "women belong in the kitchen" stuff is annoying too and those jokes kind of make me mad, simply because it degrades women.

So wait...you go from racism to gender? You really can't change people's attitudes here that easily, although I think putting it into law is counter intuitive. Otherwise, if all businesses were measured by performance, then females on average would still be paid less when it comes to stuff like manual labor, etc.

Ronald Reagan And Rick Grimes wrote:This may seem radical, but I think Islam should be banned because of this, or at least changed to where women are equal to men. The entire religion totally disgraces women and I feel really bad when I see muslim women in public with their entire bodies covered.

You sure seem to hate the first amendment. Unless you aren't American, but I don't know many Europeans who want to destroy the fundamentals of their society either,

White Anglo Saxon Protestants wrote:I take it back. I just wanted to see the ideals of a free Southern society, like the Antebellum South without all the controversial stuff... >.>

Okay that sounds better......

Ronald Reagan And Rick Grimes wrote:I would at least make it so that third parties at least have a chance by ending all political party influence on media and giving all parties equal coverage. It is a crime on its own to make people think that they only have 2 choices. Most americans probably only think there is 2 party choices. But because they control most of the media its really unfair for third parties. It's indefensible.

I would also end Drug war and legalize marijuana. There are no real health threats with marijuana and there a re far more benefits. And if the government hates it that much, they can just tax it. Seriously get over it fundamentalist conservatives. It's just stupid.

I would also employ huge penalties for racism. Like, giant fines and even jail time for using derogatory terms towards all people. And all cops must pass a test proving they are not racially biased at all. Same things for women. I really get pissed off when I hear about a woman getting paid less for the same job a man does. Pay should be decided by performance. Not gender. All the "women belong in the kitchen" stuff is annoying too and those jokes kind of make me mad, simply because it degrades women. This may seem radical, but I think Islam should be banned because of this, or at least changed to where women are equal to men. The entire religion totally disgraces women and I feel really bad when I see muslim women in public with their entire bodies covered.

An interesting cross section of views. Doubtless your ideas violate the First Amendment, but I too find typical sexist jokes to be offensive and distasteful. And the so-called 'gender pay gap' is largely a myth. Statistically, men work longer hours and often do overtime much more.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:So feck the first amendment?

I agree I quite like to be Rascist at times..... ;P

Republic Of Minerva wrote:

I think some police already have to go through something like this...

It never sticks when they are in the field....

Republic Of Minerva wrote:

So wait...you go from racism to gender? You really can't change people's attitudes here that easily, although I think putting it into law is counter intuitive. Otherwise, if all businesses were measured by performance, then females on average would still be paid less when it comes to stuff like manual labor, etc.

He seems to be very Equilibrium.....I sorta like it....Then they get different jobs....

Republic Of Minerva wrote:

You sure seem to hate the first amendment. Unless you aren't American, but I don't know many Europeans who want to destroy the fundamentals of their society either,

Yes he does....... Rick I'll keep my Bill o' Rights.

Pevvania wrote: but I too find typical sexist jokes to be offensive and distasteful. \

Jokes are jokes....Calm down.....

Pevvania wrote:An interesting cross section of views. Doubtless your ideas violate the First Amendment,

Really?

Pevvania wrote:And the so-called 'gender pay gap' is largely a myth. Statistically, men work longer hours and often do overtime much more.

http://www.payscale.com/gender-lifetime-earnings-gap

Indeed men do earn more than women on average, but not that much more when they work the same job and they have similar experience and abilities..

I would choose to end the corporate state, meaning total deregulation, desubsidisation, loophole closures, trade liberalisation, an end to no-bid contracts, an end to bailouts, and so on.

Pevvania wrote:I would choose to end the corporate state, meaning total deregulation, desubsidisation, loophole closures, trade liberalisation, an end to no-bid contracts, an end to bailouts, and so on.

A thousand salutes to you!

The Time Alliance wrote:How?

Just seems to me that it's blatantly obvious that this guy wants to get a rise out of us, and that we already spoke our minds. Could be very wrong though, didn't mean any offense TTA. :)

The Time Alliance wrote:Jokes are jokes....Calm down.

I realise this, I used to tell a lot of offensive jokes in high school. But I personally find 'women in the kitchen' jokes really seedy and repetitive. It's not just that they're offensive, but it's that their grinding repetitiveness and usually dumb concepts are offensive in themselves.

Well the constitution is in fact a living document, and I think out-dated and irrational ideas need to change so that america can move forward and become a much better place, because many things in the constitution simply do not work in contemporary times

Pevvania wrote:I realise this, I used to tell a lot of offensive jokes in high school. But I personally find 'women in the kitchen' jokes really seedy and repetitive. It's not just that they're offensive, but it's that their grinding repetitiveness and usually dumb concepts are offensive in themselves.

...Women in the Kitchen? Da heck kind of joke is that?

Ronald Reagan And Rick Grimes wrote:Well the constitution is in fact a living document, and I think out-dated and irrational ideas need to change so that america can move forward and become a much better place, because many things in the constitution simply do not work in contemporary times

I agree we should change the Constitution and some amendments but NOT the Bill of Rights.

I have a good rebuttal for men who say women should be in the kitchen... But i don't think it's quite appropriate. lol

The Time Alliance wrote:...Women in the Kitchen? Da heck kind of joke is that?

I agree we should change the Constitution and some amendments but NOT the Bill of Rights.

The bill of rights is outdated in way that were thought of by men that couldn't even imagine how their country would turn out. We must consider changes to it all amendments to truly modernize the US to suit it for 2014. Not the late 1700s. Times change and with it our laws must change.

http://f.kulfoto.com/pic/0001/0026/Tw1v625466.jpg

Ronald Reagan And Rick Grimes wrote:The bill of rights is outdated in way that were thought of by men that couldn't even imagine how their country would turn out. We must consider changes to it all amendments to truly modernize the US to suit it for 2014. Not the late 1700s. Times change and with it our laws must change.

How is the Bill of Right's outdated? Are you saying Freedom is Outdated?

The Time Alliance wrote:How is the Bill of Right's outdated? Are you saying Freedom is Outdated?

Of course not my friend! #"Murica

I'm saying certain aspects may be outdated with loopholes and modern technology, they are just bad and do not work in modern society. Like the 2nd amendment. It is a big issue today and obviously in the 1700s they couldn't have imagined our modern firearms and how dangerous they are compared to inaccurate and relatively ineffective black powdered guns of that era. Or how crazy some people are nowadays. Don't get me wrong I am for the 2nd amendment, but I can still see the validity of the opposing side of this issue.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:http://f.kulfoto.com/pic/0001/0026/Tw1v625466.jpg

so true

Ronald Reagan And Rick Grimes wrote:Of course not my friend! #"Murica

I'm saying certain aspects may be outdated with loopholes and modern technology, they are just bad and do not work in modern society. Like the 2nd amendment. It is a big issue today and obviously in the 1700s they couldn't have imagined our modern firearms and how dangerous they are compared to inaccurate and relatively ineffective black powdered guns of that era. Or how crazy some people are nowadays. Don't get me wrong I am for the 2nd amendment, but I can still see the validity of the opposing side of this issue.

I don't...

Ain't Nobody gonna be touching ma guns. I'll use them however I dang well please whenever I please sonny.

The Time Alliance wrote:I don't...

Ain't Nobody gonna be touching ma guns. I'll use them however I dang well please whenever I please sonny.

Didn't you say you're 14? Yeah. So you have like airsoft guns or paintball guns probably and not real guns. And if you've shot them, they probably aren't legally owned by you. I myself have airsoft guns, in fact I just got a new gun today.

Ronald Reagan And Rick Grimes wrote:Didn't you say you're 14? Yeah. So you have like airsoft guns or paintball guns probably and not real guns. And if you've shot them, they probably aren't legally owned by you. I myself have airsoft guns, in fact I just got a new gun today.

I've owned guns since i was 12. Long rifles yes, but as soon as i could hunt i owned my own weapon. The stipulation is that you have to shoot with someone 18 or older though.

Muh Roads wrote:I've owned guns since i was 12. Long rifles yes, but as soon as i could hunt i owned my own weapon. The stipulation is that you have to shoot with someone 18 or older though.

*Could hunt legally with a permit

Muh Roads wrote:I've owned guns since i was 12. Long rifles yes, but as soon as i could hunt i owned my own weapon. The stipulation is that you have to shoot with someone 18 or older though.

Yeah I've gone hunting a couple of times. I don't own actual guns because I don't go enough to where it is worth it. And my uncle has like 30 rifles so there's no point in wasting my money

Ronald Reagan And Rick Grimes wrote:Yeah I've gone hunting a couple of times. I don't own actual guns because I don't go enough to where it is worth it. And my uncle has like 30 rifles so there's no point in wasting my money

Hunting is in my blood.. and was expected of me. Will be the same case with my children. It's a dying sport unfortunately.. and you can tell. We have white tails running rampant here and getting hit by cars and ruining the ecosystem's balance. Sad really.

Ronald Reagan And Rick Grimes wrote:Didn't you say you're 14? Yeah. So you have like airsoft guns or paintball guns probably and not real guns. And if you've shot them, they probably aren't legally owned by you. I myself have airsoft guns, in fact I just got a new gun today.

Not Legally no......But My family owns guns. I have my own gun.

Muh Roads wrote:Hunting is in my blood.. and was expected of me. Will be the same case with my children. It's a dying sport unfortunately.. and you can tell. We have white tails running rampant here and getting hit by cars and ruining the ecosystem's balance. Sad really.

Indeed. All those Anti-Hunters need to learn we help the environment!

Don't care for guns, but I am not the one to deny people their guns.

At the very least a slight tax on bullets will suffice as regulation.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:Don't care for guns, but I am not the one to deny people their guns.

At the very least a slight tax on bullets will suffice as regulation.

Have you seen the price of ammo?? No sir!

The Time Alliance wrote:

Indeed. All those Anti-Hunters need to learn we help the environment!

I'm pleasantly surprised to know you think this way. Good stuff.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:Don't care for guns, but I am not the one to deny people their guns.

At the very least a slight tax on bullets will suffice as regulation.

Coming from the guy who dislikes the Idea of Taxing Marijuana.

How can you not like taxing marijuana?

Ronald Reagan And Rick Grimes wrote:How can you not like taxing marijuana?

I know....

Much Money

Ronald Reagan And Rick Grimes wrote:How can you not like taxing marijuana?

I'm not in favor of taxing anything truthfully. But sin tax is probably my favorite form of taxation (that sounds very strange to say).

Muh Roads wrote:I'm not in favor of taxing anything truthfully. But sin tax is probably my favorite form of taxation (that sounds very strange to say).

Same!!!!

Muh Roads wrote:I'm not in favor of taxing anything truthfully. But sin tax is probably my favorite form of taxation (that sounds very strange to say).

Yeah I am a firm believer all taxation is theft. I just say tax marijuana because that is the only thing that will get greedy politicians to legalize it nationally.

Well guys. I changed my religion. I was Christian and am now Jewish.

!מזל טוב

Have a glass of Manischewitz for me!

I was about to write a speech about the importance of major decisions and the danger of quick choices...but I stopped myself when I saw it was Einsiev. Carry on.

תודה לך חבר!

Conservative Idealism In Libertatem wrote:I was about to write a speech about the importance of major decisions and the danger of quick choices...but I stopped myself when I saw it was Einsiev. Carry on.

This....made my day.

I hope you all still respect me. As I am no different really.

I changed my religion too. I am now a Scientologist.

Why? Because.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:I changed my religion too. I am now a Scientologist.

Why? Because.

..................

Republic Of Minerva wrote:I changed my religion too. I am now a Scientologist.

Why? Because.

.............

Einsiev wrote:I hope you all still respect me. As I am no different really.

We do. I like Jews.

Yay. And yes, I support Zionism.

Einsiev wrote:Yay. And yes, I support Zionism.

As do I.

Alright! *throws a taco at a wall in excitement and yells wachang!*

Einsiev wrote:Yay. And yes, I support Zionism.

supports the death of 1000s of palestinians and the forcing of them off of their land

We respect you every bit as much as we did previously, Einsiev. Don't worry about it. *yells wachang!*

Ronald Reagan And Rick Grimes wrote:supports the death of 1000s of palestinians and the forcing of them off of their land

...Well aren't you just a Little ray of sunshine.

That's inaccurate. They threatened Israel.

Einsiev wrote:That's inaccurate. They threatened Israel.

They do...I don't see why Palestine can't just into being it's own country by now though...

If they keep it up with Israel, they'll never be independent.

Do "groups" of people HAVE to have their own country?

Because I believe that founding a country on a specific religion, culture, or race is rather bigoted.

Countries are overrated. Principalities and free territories are where it's at.

Israel debate? Oh dear.

Ronald Reagan And Rick Grimes wrote:Of course not my friend! #"Murica

I'm saying certain aspects may be outdated with loopholes and modern technology, they are just bad and do not work in modern society. Like the 2nd amendment. It is a big issue today and obviously in the 1700s they couldn't have imagined our modern firearms and how dangerous they are compared to inaccurate and relatively ineffective black powdered guns of that era. Or how crazy some people are nowadays. Don't get me wrong I am for the 2nd amendment, but I can still see the validity of the opposing side of this issue.

The idea of the Bill of Rights was to protect the liberty of the American people from the government. In some ways, it's worked, and in others ways, it's failed. But it would be suicidal to throw away your rights just for the purpose of "safety" or "convenience". I'd sooner take eternal liberty than total safety. You do not want to throw away your rights, as Britain has done. Every aspect of life is decided completely on the whim of a centralised government that can do literally anything it wants. We have no Constitution. We have no written rights. We don't even have separation of powers. America has fallen behind in some ways in the past 15 years, but the day it gives its guns away is the day the government will completely take over. Your police force is becoming increasingly militarised, your intelligence agencies growing in power day by day. The Second Amendment had nothing to do with muskets or machine guns. It was ratified to prevent the expansion of government to tyrannical levels.

http://www.kowaldesign.com/budget/index.html

I'm addicted to this game! Simply eliminating the Departments of Agriculture, Education, Homeland Security and Housing, and cutting the DoD in half, gave me a balanced budget with a $20 billion surplus. But I'm going further than that.

I've eliminated, cut and privatised nearly every major federal department and agency, except the Treasury, DoD and NASA. I've eliminated the income tax for the bottom 80% of Americans, causing only a $112 billion revenue loss. All the major federal taxes are to remain unchanged (except for excises, which have increased since I've legalised drugs). The tax code will not change until the national debt is completely paid off, which will take approximately eight years, assuming revenues stay constant. After that, I cut down the Treasury to just $10 billion.

Receipts: $445 billion

Outlays: $412 billion

Federal spending is now about 0.2% of GDP. Mission accomplished.

Will not be on to do legislation and stuff. Busy day. <3 muh roads

Pevvania wrote:The idea of the Bill of Rights was to protect the liberty of the American people from the government. In some ways, it's worked, and in others ways, it's failed. But it would be suicidal to throw away your rights just for the purpose of "safety" or "convenience". I'd sooner take eternal liberty than total safety. You do not want to throw away your rights, as Britain has done. Every aspect of life is decided completely on the whim of a centralised government that can do literally anything it wants. We have no Constitution. We have no written rights. We don't even have separation of powers. America has fallen behind in some ways in the past 15 years, but the day it gives its guns away is the day the government will completely take over. Your police force is becoming increasingly militarised, your intelligence agencies growing in power day by day. The Second Amendment had nothing to do with muskets or machine guns. It was ratified to prevent the expansion of government to tyrannical levels.

Indeed it was. To "Change" The Bill of Rights is to 'Install" A bigger and stronger Government.

Pevvania wrote:http://www.kowaldesign.com/budget/index.html

I'm addicted to this game! Simply eliminating the Departments of Agriculture, Education, Homeland Security and Housing, and cutting the DoD in half, gave me a balanced budget with a $20 billion surplus. But I'm going further than that.

I've eliminated, cut and privatised nearly every major federal department and agency, except the Treasury, DoD and NASA. I've eliminated the income tax for the bottom 80% of Americans, causing only a $112 billion revenue loss. All the major federal taxes are to remain unchanged (except for excises, which have increased since I've legalised drugs). The tax code will not change until the national debt is completely paid off, which will take approximately eight years, assuming revenues stay constant. After that, I cut down the Treasury to just $10 billion.

Receipts: $445 billion

Outlays: $412 billion

Federal spending is now about 0.2% of GDP. Mission accomplished.

Welp. I will be right back. I wanna see if My Budget plan would work.

3 hours ago: The Fabulous Founder of LGBT Equality of the region Gay rejected a request from Libertatem to establish embassies.

Just saw this and I'm wondering why we requested an embassy with them in the first place.

I don't know.

It's pretty quiet today. I'm on the road to D.C. for the Congressman today. It's a pretty day in the States. I like West Virginia, a lot of hills.

Einsiev wrote:3 hours ago: The Fabulous Founder of LGBT Equality of the region Gay rejected a request from Libertatem to establish embassies.

Just saw this and I'm wondering why we requested an embassy with them in the first place.

We don't have enough embassies with civil libertarians, in my opinion.

I'm against sending these creatons requests for embassies.

Einsiev wrote:I'm against sending these creatons requests for embassies.

Why?

I'm not wanting to get into a debate.

Einsiev wrote:I'm not wanting to get into a debate.

Alrighty then.

Einsiev wrote:I'm against sending these creatons requests for embassies.

Gays aren't creatons.

Pevvania wrote:We don't have enough embassies with civil libertarians, in my opinion.

Sadly. I wonder why they decided not to accept the embassy.

The Time Alliance wrote:Gays aren't creatons.

That's not even a word XD

I believe he meant to say "cretins", and I wouldn't consider that term accurate.

We do indeed need to strengthen our foreign affairs with civil libertarians. If you find any regions that are unwilling to negotiate the terms of an embassy, point me at them and I'll see if I can use some good, old-fashioned peaceful diplomacy to resolve the matter.

Can I ask what embassies actually do? I have no idea

They signify relations between any two regions. The meaning of these "relations" is entirely in the eye of the beholder. Some see them as fire-forged alliances. Others, as acknowledgements of existence. Most see them somewhere in between.

Pevvania wrote:That's not even a word XD

........Shush...

Ronald Reagan And Rick Grimes wrote:Can I ask what embassies actually do? I have no idea

Nothing really.

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