Post Archive

Region: Libertatem

History

Opinions on my new flag?

Rateria

Skaveria wrote:Opinions on my new flag?

The yellow is disgusting.

Fellas, whom'st is down for staging a coup in Venezuela this weekend?

The United States Of Patriots

Miencraft wrote:The yellow is disgusting.

I was thinking about making it brighter

Rateria, The Liberty Brigades

Republic Of Minerva wrote:>mormons

what do you have against TTA?

What ever happened to that guy?

The Liberty Brigades wrote:What ever happened to that guy?

I think he was the one that ended up getting banned from the internet by his parents because they found all his MLP porn.

The New United States

Pevvania wrote:Fellas, whom'st is down for staging a coup in Venezuela this weekend?

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/09/08/politics/trump-venezuela-officers-secret-meetings-maduro-coup/index.html

Pevvania, Rateria

The United States has one of the finest, fairest and most judicious legal systems in world history, built on both English common law and the timeless principles of the Constitution. That being said, how is it consistent with the rule of law to have activist judges blocking implementation of laws they don't like? Take DACA. This is a blatantly illegal program established by executive fiat, not from any basis in the law, but out of "empathy". Empathy is not a power enumerated to any branch of government. And yet, when the succeeding administration began winding it down, a handful of constitutionally illiterate judges blocked it for this very reason. DACA may or may not be a good program, that doesn't matter. What matters is judges overriding the power of elected officials and allowing their personal views to get in the way of good jurisprudence.

I am increasingly convinced that the pathway to a libertarian government is not through the legislature, but through the judiciary. The more truly originalist judges we put on the courts of our nation, the harder it will be for successive leftist presidents and congresses to implement their morally bankrupt socialist agenda. Who knows, maybe one day we'll even get a Supreme Court with the guts to rightfully declare most of the federal government's activities as unconstitutional.

Miencraft, The New United States, Rateria, The United States Of Patriots, Highway Eight

wE shuld defund teh NRA 2 pay 4 univesal heathcare

The New United States

Pevvania wrote:The United States has one of the finest, fairest and most judicious legal systems in world history, built on both English common law and the timeless principles of the Constitution. That being said, how is it consistent with the rule of law to have activist judges blocking implementation of laws they don't like? Take DACA. This is a blatantly illegal program established by executive fiat, not from any basis in the law, but out of "empathy". Empathy is not a power enumerated to any branch of government. And yet, when the succeeding administration began winding it down, a handful of constitutionally illiterate judges blocked it for this very reason. DACA may or may not be a good program, that doesn't matter. What matters is judges overriding the power of elected officials and allowing their personal views to get in the way of good jurisprudence.

I am increasingly convinced that the pathway to a libertarian government is not through the legislature, but through the judiciary. The more truly originalist judges we put on the courts of our nation, the harder it will be for successive leftist presidents and congresses to implement their morally bankrupt socialist agenda. Who knows, maybe one day we'll even get a Supreme Court with the guts to rightfully declare most of the federal government's activities as unconstitutional.

The end (goal) of American Jurisprudence is judging rightly within the confines of constitution (a goodly limited government that equitably uses due process to protect the rights of the individual within the "bounds" of extreme liberty). Any judge, justice or magistrate that cannot confine his/her judgment to strictly adjudicating Law and punishing actual harm within that framework has violated their oath of office. Any who fail to act on stare decisis from Ango-American (common) Law for their legal theory imnsho commits sedition and is acting out bad behavior worth removal from the bench.

Especially since Oliver Wendell Holmes our courts are ever-increasingly filled with arrogance that misconstrue opinion to socially engineer statist decrees in violation of Separation of Powers -- only the Legislative Branch (Congress) can make statutes (law). What law schools in our lifetimes as their objective matriculate Constitutionalists who seek Liberty and Equality as their prime concern upon receiving the gavel? Judges become liberty loving Constitutionalists in spite of the ABA, University, and current legal theory. A two pronged approach of Congress authorizing a review committee to remove judges, and removing the statists from our publicly funded Law Schools would be one of the hardest but should be the most promising way to reattain a right and proper Judiciary.

Pevvania, The New United States, Rateria

Pevvania wrote:wE shuld defund teh NRA 2 pay 4 univesal heathcare

Defund all political groups

Rateria

Jadentopian Order wrote:Defund all political groups

Defund Goggle, Faceback and Twibber to pay for free Internet for everybody! That'll learn 'em. :&

Rateria

Narland wrote:Defund Goggle, Faceback and Twibber to pay for free Internet for everybody! That'll learn 'em. :&

Workers need to be paid more for their work but I want everything for free

Rateria

The idea of a "living constitution" is antithetical to liberty. The Constitution says what it says, and what is written is how it should be. Intent and change do not matter. The only things that matter are the words and what those words meant at the time of writing.

Miencraft, Pevvania, Narland, The New United States, Rateria, The United States Of Patriots

https://www.hoover.org/research/case-legal-textualism

Narland wrote:Defund

Stop right there and we're good.

Narland, The New United States, Rateria, The United States Of Patriots

To play devil's advocate, even Thomas Jefferson said that every generation the constitution should be redone from the ground up. That is a very anti-textualist view. If we were to take a textualist view on the constitution, we would need to defend US Postal against privatization, for that matter.

And anyway. I wouldn't rely on the constitution to defend what are essentially natural rights. I recommend reading Lysander Spooner, who makes this very clear. http://praxeology.net/LS-NT-2.htm#no.2

Republic Of Minerva wrote:To play devil's advocate, even Thomas Jefferson said that every generation the constitution should be redone from the ground up. That is a very anti-textualist view. If we were to take a textualist view on the constitution, we would need to defend US Postal against privatization, for that matter.

And anyway. I wouldn't rely on the constitution to defend what are essentially natural rights. I recommend reading Lysander Spooner, who makes this very clear. http://praxeology.net/LS-NT-2.htm#no.2

For someone of Jefferson's era the Constitution established constitution (little c) by fixing some immediate problems within the Common Law and ridding the American colonists of the last vestiges of Feudal political thought (Feudalism) that still plagued GB. The Venerable Sage Lysander Spooner (may his memory not be forgotten) conflates Anarchy with Self-Government and Socialism with charitable self-interest, but other than that is an outstanding Jurist worth reading from grade school up. Every generation has the right to review, revise, and/or reject any implied contractual obligation that the State thinks it may hold, and the People have the right to review their constitution in light of the Constitution, altering it or abolishing it as necessary.

Rateria

Post self-deleted by Narland.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:To play devil's advocate, even Thomas Jefferson said that every generation the constitution should be redone from the ground up. That is a very anti-textualist view. If we were to take a textualist view on the constitution, we would need to defend US Postal against privatization, for that matter.

And anyway. I wouldn't rely on the constitution to defend what are essentially natural rights. I recommend reading Lysander Spooner, who makes this very clear. http://praxeology.net/LS-NT-2.htm#no.2

The only issue with the Constitution as it stands* is that it's not clear enough. The spirit of the Constitution and the intention of many of its key architects, for all their flaws and inconsistencies, was to enshrine a democratic-republican minarchist state. At the time, "regulate commerce", for example, meant 'keep commerce free flowing'; contextually, they put in this clause to prevent individual states from inhibiting the flow, such as by taxing each other's goods. The vagueness of clauses like this has sadly been exploited by the evil and the idealistic to totally contravene the very intentions of the people that wrote them.

I like Reagan's idea of an economic bill of rights. But if we were to call a constitutional convention, scrap the document and replace it, what would you replace it with, Minerva?

*aside from the Post Office, income tax and direct election of senators

Miencraft, Narland, The New United States, Rateria

Highway Eight wrote:The idea of a "living constitution" is antithetical to liberty. The Constitution says what it says, and what is written is how it should be. Intent and change do not matter. The only things that matter are the words and what those words meant at the time of writing.

but the founding fathers owned slaves or somethin

I'm opposed to the school of original intent.

It's a sad reflection on Man that 19 educated men could calmly plan and execute the massacre of 3,000 innocent strangers.

Miencraft, Rateria

Highway Eight wrote:It's a sad reflection on Man that 19 educated men could calmly plan and execute the massacre of 3,000 innocent strangers.

If only there was some way to figure out what ideology they all shared that would make them think slaughtering non-believers was perfectly acceptable, desired, and commanded....

If only....

Lan asteslem

Metis Alberta wrote:If only there was some way to figure out what ideology they all shared that would make them think slaughtering non-believers was perfectly acceptable, desired, and commanded....

If only....

Lan asteslem

End radical religion as a whole.

Rateria

Jadentopian Order wrote:End radical religion as a whole.

I agree, but there is that ONE that seems much worse than the others... ya know, the one that still kills people regularly...

Metis Alberta wrote:If only there was some way to figure out what ideology they all shared that would make them think slaughtering non-believers was perfectly acceptable, desired, and commanded....

If only....

Lan asteslem

I'd buy the "Islam causes terror" argument if more than a miniscule percentage of Muslims were committing terrorist acts.

Miencraft, The New United States, Rateria

Skaveria wrote:I agree, but there is that ONE that seems much worse than the others... ya know, the one that still kills people regularly...

You know, there is plenty of Buddhist and Christian violence.

Myanmar, Ireland, Costa Rica, Panama, El Salvador, Mexico, Colombia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Croatia, Serbia, Montenegro, Greece, Macedonia, Caucasus, India, Nigeria, basically everywhere in Central, Eastern, Western, and Sourhern Africa, etc.

Rateria

Highway Eight wrote:You know, there is plenty of Buddhist and Christian violence.

It's not the number of Muslims that are terrorists that's concerning, It's the number that are radical fundamentalists. I'm not saying we ought to target Muslim populations and violate their rights, but we can't continue to ignore the elephant in the room. Shapiro does an excellent video on this. I know he's very conservative, but the statistics he cites are true and come from an unbiased source. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7TAAw3oQvg

Metis Alberta

Pevvania wrote:The only issue with the Constitution as it stands* is that it's not clear enough. The spirit of the Constitution and the intention of many of its key architects, for all their flaws and inconsistencies, was to enshrine a democratic-republican minarchist state. At the time, "regulate commerce", for example, meant 'keep commerce free flowing'; contextually, they put in this clause to prevent individual states from inhibiting the flow, such as by taxing each other's goods. The vagueness of clauses like this has sadly been exploited by the evil and the idealistic to totally contravene the very intentions of the people that wrote them.

I like Reagan's idea of an economic bill of rights. But if we were to call a constitutional convention, scrap the document and replace it, what would you replace it with, Minerva?

*aside from the Post Office, income tax and direct election of senators

I wouldn't advocate doing what Jefferson wants, especially because it would mean every special interest group alive would seize the chance to add their pet issue to the constitution.

My problem with textualism, per se, is that everyone is a "textualist" when it comes to the constitution: the liberal is a "textualist" when they read the "general welfare" clause to support state funded welfare. The conservative is a textualist when the Commerce clause gives them reason to impose tariffs on goods and restrict the flow of trade. The wording of the constitution is not enough, and you are right that people have read in between the lines in order to grow the government.

Instead I opt for a mix of a "natural law" and "originalist" interpretation, that the text of the constitution is in support of natural law (n.b. not divine law!) although I don't prefer this term. The constitution is only for framing "natural law" into a way to govern a nation.

Pevvania, Rateria

Republic Of Minerva wrote:1. I wouldn't advocate doing what Jefferson wants, especially because it would mean every special interest group alive would seize the chance to add their pet issue to the constitution.

2. My problem with textualism, per se, is that everyone is a "textualist" when it comes to the constitution: the liberal is a "textualist" when they read the "general welfare" clause to support state funded welfare. The conservative is a textualist when the Commerce clause gives them reason to impose tariffs on goods and restrict the flow of trade. The wording of the constitution is not enough, and you are right that people have read in between the lines in order to grow the government.

3. Instead I opt for a mix of a "natural law" and "originalist" interpretation, that the text of the constitution is in support of natural law (n.b. not divine law!) although I don't prefer this term. The constitution is only for framing "natural law" into a way to govern a nation.

1. That is the sad truth of our current political climate. It's also why implementing a good constitution in the UK would be impossible. And Jefferson definitely had a few dodgy ideas.

2. I think anything is open to interpretation. Just look at how many groups "correctly" interpret the Bible. So you're right that reading the text is not enough. Small correction: I believe tariffs are covered by the taxes and duties clause.

3. So you favor interpreting the Constitution as the Founders originally intended it to mean, with the principles of natural law added in to ensure that these intentions are well served? Is that what you're getting at? And when you say natural law, I presume you mean natural law as it applies to self-ownership?

Rateria

While we're on the topic of the Constitution, there is currently a lawsuit against Obamacare making its way through the courts. It argues that the individual mandate was the core component of the law, and without it the rest of it is invalid and unconstitutional. The Texas judge hearing the case has appeared hostile to the ACA's defenders in court and is expected to rule in their favour. This would likely mean it make its way to the Supreme Court.

It would be a dream come true if the Supreme Court struck down Obamacare. It would set a great precedent and make our work much easier. Alito, Thomas and Gorsuch would be solid votes to strike it down. I suspect Kavanaugh would join them. Roberts, the deciding vote to uphold it in 2012, did so based on the individual mandate being construed as a tax. With the mandate gone, he may vote to repeal. Probably unlikely but it would be fantastic nonetheless!

Miencraft, Narland, The New United States, Rateria

Pevvania wrote:3. So you favor interpreting the Constitution as the Founders originally intended it to mean

Not entirely.

The underlying basis for the constitution is to protect Natural Rights, (life lib and property). This is even earlier than the Founders (Locke et al.) and should not rely on the intentions of the founders (god damn it Jefferson, changing estate to happiness smh)

Rateria

Republic Of Minerva wrote:Not entirely.

The underlying basis for the constitution is to protect Natural Rights, (life lib and property). This is even earlier than the Founders (Locke et al.) and should not rely on the intentions of the founders (god damn it Jefferson, changing estate to happiness smh)

Pursuit of happiness (the right to lawfully practice learn or teach a trade, profession, occupation or vocation; or otherwise offer a product or service as an integral part of my person undeterred by arbitrary constraint) is itself a necessary condition for freedom, economic growth, and property ownership. It covers not only my property rights but also the right to own the business concerns that allowed me to obtain that property in the first place. Thus the rights of businessmen, tradesman, craftsmen and artists to own the means of their production to buy sell and create their own property are put on par with the rights of those who already hold property. Right to own property is necessary, but I prefer the right to pursuit of happiness as a perquisite. It would have been even better if the DoI read, "...the right to life, liberty, property (including the pursuit of happiness)...."

Pevvania, The New United States, Rateria

Highway Eight wrote:You know, there is plenty of Buddhist and Christian violence.

Myanmar, Ireland, Costa Rica, Panama, El Salvador, Mexico, Colombia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Croatia, Serbia, Montenegro, Greece, Macedonia, Caucasus, India, Nigeria, basically everywhere in Central, Eastern, Western, and Sourhern Africa, etc.

Ah, the false equivalence trope.

You list a bunch of countries giving no evidence, nor context.

How about this...lets list all the countries where homosexuals are stoned, hung from cranes, and thrown from buildings.

Nothing the least bit radical about those countries at all. Merely following their religious ideology. Absolutely normal in their societies.

Now, small percentage, or common?

Pevvania

Metis Alberta wrote:Ah, the false equivalence trope.

You list a bunch of countries giving no evidence, nor context.

How about this...lets list all the countries where homosexuals are stoned, hung from cranes, and thrown from buildings.

Nothing the least bit radical about those countries at all. Merely following their religious ideology. Absolutely normal in their societies.

Now, small percentage, or common?

We were talking about terrorism, and religious violence. There is no false equivalence. Homosexuals see persecution across the globe, not just in Islamic countries. Homosexuals are still under threat of death in many third world catholic and buddhist countries today. The issue isn't religion, it's poverty, and education, and societal divisions.

Miencraft, Rateria

I forgot how insane this county really is... my death rate is mostly influenced by Gov't involved disappearance 0.0

Rateria

And quite frankly, you're more likely to be attacked by "right-wing" racial nationalists and pseudo-libertarians than you are to be killed by an Islamic radical.

Furthermore, according to a report titled State Sponsored Homophobia: A world survey of sexual orientation laws: Criminalisation, Protection and Recognition, Muslim majority countries account 28 of 72 countries where the state sponsors the murder, imprisonment, torture, and/or other rights violations of homosexuals. The remaining 44 countries are almost all Christian/Buddhist majority countries, and nearly all are outside of Europe/North America, indicating in my opinion that the issue is education, poverty, and other divisions in society, not religion.

Highway Eight wrote:And quite frankly, you're more likely to be attacked by "right-wing" racial nationalists and pseudo-libertarians than you are to be killed by an Islamic radical.

Citation? I'd agree with that for antifa (as they have a higher presence in western countries and are more violent) but I do not think you are being very honest there. The racial nationalists have been shamed out of existence and not even they can take themselves seriously anymore as for "pseudo-libertarians" what is the definition or example you are using to define these people?

Pevvania

The Completly Oppressive States wrote:Citation? I'd agree with that for antifa (as they have a higher presence in western countries and are more violent) but I do not think you are being very honest there. The racial nationalists have been shamed out of existence and not even they can take themselves seriously anymore as for "pseudo-libertarians" what is the definition or example you are using to define these people?

Join the discord. Left-wing extremism is increasingly rare, while the opposite is true for right-wing terror.

Back to the old "Islam is just like any other religion" argument. I've spoken at length about this before and don't have the energy to repeat the self-evident truth of the matter. This I will say, though: I strongly urge any Islam apologists around here to read the Qu'ran, and if you don't and continue to bloviate on the matter, you're being willfully ignorant (yes I've read it).

On a related matter, as much as I criticize the barbarism and backwardness of Islamic ideology and culture, what's happening in Thailand and China is wrong. I see many nationalists and Trump supporters on the internet laugh and cheer at the Chinese government detaining a million Muslims for being 'mentally ill', and apathy at best towards the horrific attacks on the Rohingya minority in Thailand. Beyond it being a callous attitude towards our fellow human beings, it also shows a tremendous lack of principle. Does it really need to be said that persecuting someone for their religious beliefs is a blatant violation of individual liberty? Secondly, how can anyone think these kind of actions are effective, when it's just fueling the growth of radical Islam and the idea that non-Muslims are the enemy?

As the Cold War can tell us, the best way to fight a bad idea is with a good idea. The success of western capitalism and the spread of its culture was a major driver of disillusionment within the Soviet Union and elsewhere. "Why do Americans get to live so well, and we live in squalor?" I feel the same is possible in the Islamic world, where in most countries large majorities of the people believe women are inferior to men, apostasy should be punishable by death and jihad can be a righteous cause. Free trade and free flow of information is a liberating force and, in my view, is the best way to civilize people.

Miencraft, Metis Alberta

Also, the idea that poverty is the main driver of terrorism is inadequate. Osama Bin Laden and all of the 9/11 hijackers came from very wealthy families, and many of the leaders and members of ISIS, the Taliban and many other groups are very well educated and come from middle class or wealthy families. As easy as it is to stick our heads in the sand and blame terrorism on economics, culture and ideology play far more important roles.

Narland, Metis Alberta

Highway Eight wrote:Join the discord. Left-wing extremism is increasingly rare, while the opposite is true for right-wing terror.

Hahahahaha

Metis Alberta

Right-wing terror: "Live your life the way you want or I'll kill you!!!"

Narland

Pev, you didn't address the statement. You equate "right-wing" with libertarianism, when libertarianism and capitalism are not synonyms. Support for capitalism is the definition of right-wing.

I was mostly citing Ideological Motivations of Terrorism in the United States, 1970--2016, a report by The National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism

Highway Eight wrote:Pev, you didn't address the statement. You equate "right-wing" with libertarianism, when libertarianism and capitalism are not synonyms. Support for capitalism is the definition of right-wing.

Support for capitalism is synonymous with support for human liberty. Forgive me if I find it hard to believe that capitalists and conservatives are a bigger driver of domestic terror than leftist thugs. The Philadelphia bombing, maybe some of the anti-government militias of the 90s, sure. But beyond that, what other significant instances have there been? I'll look at the study you're quoting.

In the past half-century, the 1970s actually saw a greater volume and frequency of annual terror attacks within the United States than at any other time - and leftist, anarchist and communist groups were behind almost all of these attacks. I'm sure there's a source to back that up somewhere, but I learnt that in a poli sci class I took earlier this year that was taught by a former FBI anti-terror analyst who was deployed to Iraq.

And in the 2010s, what argument do you possibly have? The radical left is more violent and mobile than the so-called alt-right could ever hope to be. The alt-right have the killing of a woman at Charlottesville last year. Sporadic stabbings and, I'm told, killings by neo-Nazis (fascist and not right-wing - big difference). Antifa and the left have thousands of beatings, assaults, threats, shootings (such as of Steve Scalise) and most recently a mass shooting threat in DC at a MAGA rally. How could you possibly claim that the right is more violent than the left in 2018? We are not the ones encouraging violence against our political opponents; for evidence of that, please look at Mad Maxine's "confront them everywhere", Maddona's "bomb the White House" and Pelosi's "why aren't there uprisings in the street" comments, amongst many others.

Narland

I'm very curious to see the methodology of this study of this study and what it considers terrorism. I bet they count Cliven Bundy as a "right-wing terrorist" for defending his own land.

The New United States, The United States Of Patriots, Metis Alberta

Yeah, I can see that we aren't gonna get anywhere becayse you're making this political, when as this scholarly study has shown, left-wing terror has dramatically decreased, and right wing terror has increased. If you aren't gonna live with facts you disagree with, oh well.

Miencraft

Highway Eight wrote:Yeah, I can see that we aren't gonna get anywhere becayse you're making this political, when as this scholarly study has shown, left-wing terror has dramatically decreased, and right wing terror has increased. If you aren't gonna live with facts you disagree with, oh well.

I'm reading the study and it seems I misinterpreted your statement. Ok, according to the study there was an increase in left-wing terror and a decrease in "right-wing terror" in 2010-2016, but there are still big problems with its definition of "right-wing terror".

Its definition of right-wing extremism is "Violence in support of the belief that personal and/or national way of life is under attack (not necessarily right-wing) and is either already lost or that the threat is imminent. Characterized by anti-globalism, racial or ethnic supremacy or nationalism, (arguably right-wing depending on definition but nothing to do with conservatism or capitalism) suspicion of

centralized federal authority, reverence for individual liberty, and/or belief in conspiracy theories that involve grave

threat to national sovereignty and/or personal liberty." Brackets mine.

You yourself defined right-wing as support of capitalism. If we exclude ethnic nationalists and white supremacists from the study's definition, the percentage of 'right-wing terror attacks' (of 113 attacks) in the 2010-16 period falls from 35% to 22%. And even then, they count Ammon Bundy's 2016 Oregon standoff as a "terror attack" (?????). I'm sure you'd agree that's patently absurd, so excluding that we see the percentage fall to 21%, or 24 attacks. These 24 attacks resulted in 11 deaths, an average of 0.45 deaths per attack. Counting all leftist and environmentalist attacks (judging from their own table) results in 20 attacks (18%) and 13 deaths, an average of 0.65 deaths per attack. So the numbers are roughly the same, with "right-wing" attacks being of a slightly higher frequency, but "left-wing" attacks being more fatal. (This is slightly higher than the 12% quoted in the preamble, but just by using the basic definitions of 'environmentalist' and 'leftist' when counting the attacks listed in the table, we get the higher number).

Additionally, you said "increasingly rare" as if to refer to the United States today. This study does not count attacks in the 2016-18 period, when the collective insanity and rage of the left has been unleashed in the aftermath of Trump's election. Antifa was classified a terrorist group by DHS in 2017, so if the same study was taken today, I suspect the results would be very different.

Do you see the issues I have with your claim, and why I think the way you're quoting the study is misleading?

Highway Eight wrote:And quite frankly, you're more likely to be attacked by "right-wing" racial nationalists and pseudo-libertarians than you are to be killed by an Islamic radical.

This is, according to your own source, false. Even by accepting the shoddily assembled, straw-manned accounting of "right-wing" attacks in its totality, these are the results we get:

Jihadi-inspired extremists, Muslim extremists, Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan, Iraqi extremists: 41 attacks (36%), 81 deaths (of 123 deaths, so 65% of the killings in the period cited).

Pevvania wrote:This is, according to your own source, false. Even by accepting the shoddily assembled, straw-manned accounting of "right-wing" attacks in its totality, these are the results we get:

Jihadi-inspired extremists, Muslim extremists, Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan, Iraqi extremists: 41 attacks (36%), 81 deaths (of 123 deaths, so 65% of the killings in the period cited).

You conflate "Iraqi Extremists, which were mostly nationalists, with Islamists simply because "Iraqis are Muslim". Moreover, there is a difference between "jihadi inspired", and "muslim". Additionally, I beleive the study acknowledges tgan many of the nationalists also were sympathetic to "libertarian" and capitalistic causes, and that although they were not the main reason for their attacks (which is what they are listed under , the MAIN reason), they were still a factor in many cases.

Additionally, I think that the fatalities you pull up are completely irrelevant to what is being discussed and you seem to be using them muddy the water with "the right is more violent, but the left is more effective at being violent" which is not important.

Highway Eight wrote:You conflate "Iraqi Extremists, which were mostly nationalists, with Islamists simply because "Iraqis are Muslim". Moreover, there is a difference between "jihadi inspired", and "muslim". Additionally, I beleive the study acknowledges tgan many of the nationalists also were sympathetic to "libertarian" and capitalistic causes, and that although they were not the main reason for their attacks (which is what they are listed under , the MAIN reason), they were still a factor in many cases.

Removing Iraqi and Muslim extremists does not significantly change the data, though. Religiously motivated terror attacks, as you can see in the percentages and the tables shown in the study, make up the majority of attacks in the US over that period, and Islamist attacks make up the vast majority of that. Even just accepting the conclusions of the study at face value, you're far more likely to be victimized or killed by an Islamic extremist than a "right-wing" extremist.

Highway Eight wrote:Additionally, I think that the fatalities you pull up are completely irrelevant to what is being discussed and you seem to be using them muddy the water with "the right is more violent, but the left is more effective at being violent" which is not important.

I was not suggesting that, merely sharing the results of the data, and as I demonstrated, over the past six years the numerical difference between "left-wing" and "right-wing" attacks is small. Additionally, it does not change my assertion earlier in the conversation that over the past forty years, leftist attacks have been far more prevalent.

But you've just streched the truth. Removing them would significantly affect the results.

Highway Eight wrote:But you've just lied. Removing them would significantly affect the results.

No, it wouldn't. The number of attacks drops from 41 to 32 (28%), and the number of deaths drops from 81 to 71 (57% of deaths). So, even just accounting for jihadist attacks and attacks by the Taliban, you've still got them accounting for the majority of deaths in the 2010-16 period.

Also, why do you insist that we exclude Muslim extremists? Those are still extremists motivated by Islam. Even though the majority of Muslims globally are not Salafists, the majority of Muslims globally still hold extremist views by western standards. Most Saudi Arabians, for example, bitterly oppose Salafism, but still support sharia law (political Islam) and support subjugating women, gays and so forth. So the distinction your trying to make doesn't matter.

You've been caught making unsubstantiated claims; trying to chip away at and undermine the argument (Islamist terror is the most common and most lethal in the United States in the 2010s, and more so than so-called "right-wing terror") by arbitrarily excluding or including inconvenient data points is not going to help your case.

Metis Alberta

Also, I shouldn't have dismissively laughed off your initial statement, that was very presumptuous of me. But it doesn't change the fact that you're misinterpreting the study at hand (which in itself has problems that I've mentioned).

Pevvania wrote:Right-wing terror: "Live your life the way you want or I'll kill you!!!"

Right-wing terror: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuI5kfSFAJc

Jadentopian Order wrote:Right-wing terror: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuI5kfSFAJc

Yes, I already referred to that. I still think it's inaccurate to place white nationalists on the same side of the political spectrum as conservatives and libertarians, because white nationalists are fundamentally collectivist in nature rather than individualistic. They are, more often than not, ethnocentric socialists. See Richard Spencer.

Metis Alberta

I believe the Dodge Charger guy is innocent and should be let off on self defense/defending property. He didn't initially plow through the crowd and tried to get through slowly. It's obvious he hit the gas when he saw people striking the back of his car.

The States Of Balloon, Metis Alberta

By the way, why is everyone suddenly promoting the media-driven idea that so-called right-wing terror is more dangerous or more prevalent than statist violence? You guys do realize you're helping sow the seeds of your own social isolation, vilification and purging?

The idea that white nationalist and neo-Nazi groups are undergoing some kind of historic, never-before-seen resurgence is a lie designed to vilify capitalism. It doesn't matter if you support Trump or not; by connecting these ideologies to Trump supporters and the "far-right", they are a) discrediting Trump's election as being helped by neo-Nazis and racists, b) pushing the idea that large parts of the country are immoral racists, thereby feeding into the left's idea that there's something inherently wrong with America that needs to be corrected by government control and crackdowns on free speech, c) incorrectly conflating collectivism with individualism by labeling these ideologues as 'far-right', thereby smearing the advocates of capitalism as well, who are often also labelled 'far-right'. Candace Owens, for example, has been referred to as 'far-right' by several media sources, so the average reader probably thinks "oh, she's a Nazi".

You should condemn racism, white nationalism and any violence its believers cause. And I suggested counter-protesting it before. But white nationalists and neo-Nazis (which is a very, very loosely defined term) make up an extremely small percentage of the population. Members of KKK groups across the United States number in 8000 people, or 0.000025% of the population, a far cry from the 5 million+ the KKK had in the 1920s. Their so-called patron saint, Steve Bannon, isn't even a white nationalist, and worked with Andrew Breitbart, a Jew, for a number of years. The "extreme right" has zero institutional influence. Its only role, it seems, is to be used as a bogey-man for the leftist media to confirm the biases of leftists and strike fear into the apolitical and the independent.

In short: it is a brainwashing tool.

What extremist group in American society holds the most power? The radical left. They control our schools, the media, the entertainment industry, sports and have been the drivers of culture for decades. They are having a great influence over social media platforms and technology companies. The private sector, paradoxically, is increasingly under their cultural control. Antifa and similar groups hold violent rallies across the United States, and very often beat, maim and grievously wound innocent people without legal repercussions. They openly fantasize about killing or murdering Trump supporters or 'people on the right'. Mainstream media outlets frequently overlook or refuse to report on the savagery of these people, because of their aforementioned agenda to demonize the right, a key cultural tool in overturning the hijacking the American revolution for leftist and socialist causes.

By nodding along to these voices that say the "extreme right" is more dangerous than the "extreme left", you may think you're being centrist or rational or evenhanded. You are not. What you're doing is serving the interests of the cultural Marxists in their goal of destroying capitalism and turning America into a socialist state. You are all very intelligent people. Please see through their tactics.

Miencraft, The New United States, The Completly Oppressive States, Skaveria, Metis Alberta

Highway Eight wrote:We were talking about terrorism, and religious violence. There is no false equivalence. Homosexuals see persecution across the globe, not just in Islamic countries. Homosexuals are still under threat of death in many third world catholic and buddhist countries today. The issue isn't religion, it's poverty, and education, and societal divisions.

Highway Eight wrote:And quite frankly, you're more likely to be attacked by "right-wing" racial nationalists and pseudo-libertarians than you are to be killed by an Islamic radical.

Furthermore, according to a report titled State Sponsored Homophobia: A world survey of sexual orientation laws: Criminalisation, Protection and Recognition, Muslim majority countries account 28 of 72 countries where the state sponsors the murder, imprisonment, torture, and/or other rights violations of homosexuals. The remaining 44 countries are almost all Christian/Buddhist majority countries, and nearly all are outside of Europe/North America, indicating in my opinion that the issue is education, poverty, and other divisions in society, not religion.

You lump being arrested for buggery with being put to death?

Fluffing stats to include as broad as loose definition as possible to hopefully take the heat off of Muslim nations.

Cute.

Name one "Christian" nation where the state, and Church put homosexuals to death.

You see your false equivalence falls flat on it selective face.

Name all the Islamic nations where pride parades are held. Funny how it's "Christian" nations where the vast majority are. So much for that meme.

Rather funny that western gay lobbyists will bend over backward to defend Muslims chucking gays off of roofs while screaming blue murder if a Christian doesn't bake them a cake.

The east end of London is seeing it's gay population leaving in droves..why is that? Who is it that is driving them out? Hmmmm....I wonder...why does London's pride parade have to alter its route to avoid certain neighborhoods? Who lives in those neighborhoods?

Western gay dhimmi's will gladly sacrifice their gay friends for those at the top of the favored victim class.

Let me know when you wander through Dearborn with a gay flag...yeah lol...

Pevvania

I’m seeing an issue here. It seems to be that a solid definition of “right-wing” cannot be agreed upon. I know this feeling too. In my experience, the definitions for “left-wing” and “right-wing” tend to be debated by people of all political ideologies. Some people consider right-wing to mean libertarian capitalists, classical liberals, etc. From what I can see, Pevvania is in this group. Others put fascists, conservatives, and libertarians together. If I am observing this correctly, Highway Eight is more or less in this camp. A similar issue applies to the definition of left-wing, in my experience. Some consider liberals who want regulated capitalism to be left-wing, while others (mostly leftists, from what I’ve observed) assert that one must reject capitalism to be left-wing.

This is just from what I am seeing. If I am wrong, please correct me.

Miencraft

Highway Eight wrote:And quite frankly, you're more likely to be attacked by "right-wing" racial nationalists and pseudo-libertarians than you are to be killed by an Islamic radical.

And with that statement we just watched your credibility run out the door with its arss on fire.

There is no such thing as a Muslim radical.

What does ISIS do that's different from KSA? Nothing. Islam is Islam.

To state differently displays an appalling lack of knowledge, and experience with the subject matter.

Pevvania

Islam is as incompatible with Libertarianism as Fascism. Islam, as practiced on a state level IS Fascism, hence Islamo-Fascism. Literally the only redeeming quality I've found with it is that it seems to not be racist. Islam destroys native populations without prejudice. Take Sudan for example. Why do you think it's the case that the Christian AND Animist south rebelled against the purely Islamic north? It's because the Islamic regime slaughtered or converted through force all the natives in the north, while the Christians in the south attempted voluntary conversion. I'm assuming this is where someone would say: "But muh Crusades!" Yeah, the crusades were wrong for many reasons, despite the fact that Europeans were literally defending themselves from Islamic conquest into Byzantium... "But muh Spanish Inquisition!" yep, that was horrible too... but that was over 500 years ago, not to mention the fact that Espana suffered under years of Islamic rule, which called for the extermination of infidels, with exception for people of the book, which were still taxed against their will and made to give up property JUST because of their religion.

Pevvania, The Completly Oppressive States, Metis Alberta

Skaveria wrote:Islam is as incompatible with Libertarianism as Fascism. Islam, as practiced on a state level IS Fascism, hence Islamo-Fascism. Literally the only redeeming quality I've found with it is that it seems to not be racist. Islam destroys native populations without prejudice. Take Sudan for example. Why do you think it's the case that the Christian AND Animist south rebelled against the purely Islamic north? It's because the Islamic regime slaughtered or converted through force all the natives in the north, while the Christians in the south attempted voluntary conversion. I'm assuming this is where someone would say: "But muh Crusades!" Yeah, the crusades were wrong for many reasons, despite the fact that Europeans were literally defending themselves from Islamic conquest into Byzantium... "But muh Spanish Inquisition!" yep, that was horrible too... but that was over 500 years ago, not to mention the fact that Espana suffered under years of Islamic rule, which called for the extermination of infidels, with exception for people of the book, which were still taxed against their will and made to give up property JUST because of their religion.

Well at least they're not racist!

Hello to you all. I am very pleased to have opened an embassy with your region. I am the Magistrate in Atlantis and am in charge of our embassies. Here is our latest foreign update:

Just a quick update

[list][*]Atlantis has a new forum and you are all invited to come say hello: http://nscommonwealth.proboards.com

[*]We woke up to a new Delegate yesterday morning in a sensational coup. Congratulations [nation=Lemmingtopias].

[*]Check out our new poll on our region page.[/list]

What's new in your region?

Rateria

>leftists have all this institutional power but they can't even win a culture war

pathetic

Rateria

The States Of Balloon wrote:>leftists have all this institutional power but they can't even win a culture war

pathetic

We'll see!

You know, as much as I dislike Communism, the United States shouldn't have gotten involved in the affairs of Communist nations in the 20th century. Every debate I have with a Communist they inevitably bring up U.S sanctions and military intervention as the main reasons why the state in question failed. Honestly, they have a point in that regard, our intervention probably hurt the people living in those nations. Obviously Communism will always fail, but I think we should let it burn through a few times, just so we can end this ridiculous debate that should've been settled thirty years ago. Let Catalonia break from Spain, let California exit the union, let Sinn Fein control Ireland, no sanctions, no military operations, no aid. Let's find out EXACTLY how many corpses have to pile up before they learn because apparently over 100 million isn't enough.

The Completly Oppressive States, Rateria

Skaveria wrote: Let Catalonia break from Spain, let California exit the union

I mean these are just straight up good ideas in terms of self-determination anyways. The US has been a voluntary association from the start and Spain would make itself look a hell of a lot less like a tyrannical backwater (ie a European country) if they just let the secession happen.

Rateria

Miencraft wrote:I mean these are just straight up good ideas in terms of self-determination anyways. The US has been a voluntary association from the start and Spain would make itself look a hell of a lot less like a tyrannical backwater (ie a European country) if they just let the secession happen.

Yeah, I would support all of these happening for self-governance reasons, I was just being a bit cynical and using them for my rant. I'm curious why you left Sinn Fein out of the quote though, I only referenced them specifically because I know they're left-wing and for Irish independence. I'm sure Spain has a similar party, I know if Catalonia splits off, the government imposed will be left-wing.

Rateria

Skaveria wrote:I'm curious why you left Sinn Fein out of the quote though

Primarily because my knowledge of Irish politics is severely lacking. Would prefer to just not have an opinion about it than an uninformed one.

Rateria

Skaveria wrote:You know, as much as I dislike Communism, the United States shouldn't have gotten involved in the affairs of Communist nations in the 20th century. Every debate I have with a Communist they inevitably bring up U.S sanctions and military intervention as the main reasons why the state in question failed. Honestly, they have a point in that regard, our intervention probably hurt the people living in those nations. Obviously Communism will always fail, but I think we should let it burn through a few times, just so we can end this ridiculous debate that should've been settled thirty years ago.

I understand your point, but I disagree. Communism was a threat to the entire world, and it was a political and military necessity to confront it abroad. There were many notable missteps, but we made some successful interventions that improved the lives of ordinary people. Chile, for example - had the CIA not helped overthrow Allende, that country would still be mired in poverty. And the people of Poland and Eastern Europe definitely appreciated American and British support.

Yes, the Communists use "muh US intervention" as an intellectual crutch. But who cares? These people are an annoying minority mostly confined to mom's basement (and - *cough cough* - tenured jobs teaching band) and very easy to debate with. It doesn't change that communism in the Marxist-Leninist sense was attempted in dozens of countries in literally the most diverse conditions imaginable, from the jungles of Indochina to the deserts of Angola, and failed in every case (except when they adopted market systems). They were able to trade with each other and with the Soviet Union, so they have no excuse.

Skaveria wrote:Let Catalonia break from Spain, let California exit the union, let Sinn Fein control Ireland, no sanctions, no military operations, no aid. Let's find out EXACTLY how many corpses have to pile up before they learn because apparently over 100 million isn't enough.

Catalonia yes, California no. I think there'd be seriously damaging consequences if we let them separated while they're still such a big contributor to the US economy. They grow our food, they produce our films and music, they produce a lot of oil. This state is pathologically insane on a political level, but we haven't fully collapsed (yet). Also, California hasn't swung a single presidential election in its entire existence, i.e. it could've voted for the other candidate in every election since 1852 and the result would not have changed. Honestly I think the best thing we can do for California is send in the feds, arrest and charge every corrupt socialist politician and instate martial law until the state has been reconstructed.

Unfortunately, when it comes to the Communists, we are dealing with incredibly obstinate people that have blind unwavering faith in their ideology. It doesn't matter how many bodies pile up, how much human suffering there is, how many nations are plunged into darkness, they'll always find a way to assign the blame on capitalism. I debated the founder of the NS region North Korea a few years ago on capitalism v communism, and when I pointed out the numerous genocides and crimes perpetrated by the Stalinists she reveres, she waved most of them off as "propaganda" and pointed to "US war crimes" in Iraq and Vietnam.

There is no helping these people.

Narland, The New United States, The Completly Oppressive States, Rateria

Magically, just a week before the Judiciary Committee is scheduled to vote on Kavanaugh, the Democrats float a letter accusing him of sexual assault over 30 years ago. So this is now the official liberal playbook. "Our ideas suck, let's just accuse the opposition of being rapists." Wow!

Miencraft, The New United States, The Completly Oppressive States

Miencraft wrote:Primarily because my knowledge of Irish politics is severely lacking. Would prefer to just not have an opinion about it than an uninformed one.

But that's where the fun is. Just say something bad about the Irish and 75% of this region will come at you even if it should be obvious you're trolling. I said all Irish people have terrorism in their blood one time and I got called a racist even though I'm like 50% Irish.

Miencraft, The New United States, Rateria

Can anyone name a single successful foreign policy initiative of Barack Obama? Just one?

Rateria

Pevvania wrote:Can anyone name a single successful foreign policy initiative of Barack Obama? Just one?

He did kill ol Binny boy

Pevvania, Rateria

Skaveria wrote:He did kill ol Binny boy

That's true, we can give him that one at least.

Rateria

Highway Eight wrote:Yeah, I can see that we aren't gonna get anywhere becayse you're making this political, when as this scholarly study has shown, left-wing terror has dramatically decreased, and right wing terror has increased. If you aren't gonna live with facts you disagree with, oh well.

Left....................................................................................Center...............................................................................................,,,,,,....Right

<....................................................................<American Political Spectrum>...............................................................................>

Tyranny <..........................................<Maximium Self-Goverment/Limited (External Government)>.....................................................>Anarchy

Controlled by External Forces...........<Extreme Liberty Recognition of Individual Rights, Equality Under Law>..........Everyone Leaves everyone else alone.

.......................................................................European Political Spectrum

Left<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<Everything Socialist/Statist>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Right

International Socialists, Communists<<<<<<<<<Fabian Socialists, Progressives>>>>>>>>>Corporatist Socialists (Fascists), National Socialists

European Spectrum

Notice there is no room for anything but Statist forms of thinking, especially Statist forms of Socialism that are left, right, and center. In the United States I am a right wing Liberty-loving Conservative. When I lived in UK i was a Classical Liberal who affiliated with the Conservative Party where my views had no place. Today I would most likely belong to UKIP. In France I did not fit in their political spectrum at all. On the European Spectrum a terrorist can be left, right, and even center. On the American Spectrum this is not so.

American Spectrum

With the American political spectrum the more one thinks that someone else has the right to interfere and micromanage another's life (Despotism) in areas other than unrestrained fraud and force are Leftists by definition (We are conserving Republican Classical Liberalism after all; the Europeans are conserving whatever form of governance their grandparents adopted). On the American Spectrum all terrorism is Leftist by definition. The Rightist will leave you alone to rise or fall on the consequences of the moral stupidity or moral acumen from your own actions so long as you leave others alone. Non-statist forms of Socialism can be center or even on the right, so long as they don't violate the person of others.

Crossing the Euro and the American Spectrum

If you rotate the Euro Chart 90 degrees and place the middle of it to the far left of American Chart in a Cartesian manner, you can see how each of these political worldviews construe each other. All Americans that are not Fabian Socialists or to its Left (most Americans) are merely a dot on the center right. All Europeans that aren't explicitly Classical Liberal/Libertarian (90%+ of all Western Europeans) are a dot on the Extreme Left of the American Spectrum. This is inadequate and why I prefer things like the Nolan Chart to better understand political leanings.

Pevvania, The New United States, Rateria, The United States Of Patriots

Pevvania wrote:Can anyone name a single successful foreign policy initiative of Barack Obama? Just one?

Libya, for one.

/lie

Pevvania, Rateria

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900031976/gop-sen-jeff-flake-prefers-democratic-president-who-restores-civility-over-trump.html

Does Jeff Flake do anything anymore besides trash the President? So much for "restoring civility."

Pevvania, Rateria

The New United States wrote:https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900031976/gop-sen-jeff-flake-prefers-democratic-president-who-restores-civility-over-trump.html

Does Jeff Flake do anything anymore besides trash the President? So much for "restoring civility."

It's funny how those who yearn the most for civility in politics often practice it the least.

Miencraft, Narland, The New United States, Rateria

Anyone who criticizes Islam in any way is a racist

Pevvania

The New Icelandic Commonwealth wrote:Anyone who criticizes Islam in any way is a racist

Ain't that the gospel truth.

In other news: https://mises.org/power-market/without-federal-government-who-will-regulate-dog-meat

Thank goodness the federal government is coming in to finally rescue us from eating dogs! What would we ever do without the feds? This just makes me appreciate even more the great wisdom and foresight of the founders, who declare in Article I Section 8 of the Constitution that "the Congress shall have power to regulate eating house pets." Bravo.

Narland, Republic Of Minerva

Libertatem,

There is currently a resolution at vote in the GA: "Preventing the Execution of Innocents."

This resolution, if passed, would give the World Assembly power over the administration of justice within our countries. All capital punishments would have to be approved by a bureaucracy of the World Assembly. Now, regardless of whether or not we are in favor of capital punishment, this is a clear assault against our sovereignty and is an unnecessary growth in WA power.

I encourage every WA member state to vote against this despicable power-grab.

https://www.nationstates.net/page=ga

(not sure if I ever made it clear, but this is a puppet state of TNUS :P )

Foreign Update - 16th September

Good Morning Friends.

Here is our latest news from Atlantis:

[list][*]The NationStates Commonwealth has amended it's charter, altering the way the Head of the Commonwealth is selected.

[*]Lemmingtopias will be coronated as King of Atlantis on the 22nd of September at 10PM GMT+0. We invite you to attend this happy event which will take place on our discord: https://discord.gg/tnGzENm

[*]Our newest poll follows on from our last poll. Our hero has decided to check out the market but has been shockingly robbed! What will she do next? You decide. Come and vote![/list]

Until next time,

May Poseidon Guide You.

Rateria

By the way I'd like to mention that the regional map is propaganda against my glorious state. It is borderline sedition not to include my people and my glorious monuments to the map.

The New Icelandic Commonwealth wrote:Anyone who criticizes Islam in any way is a racist

And if you criticize Israel you are anti-semitic

The New Icelandic Commonwealth

Republic Of Minerva wrote:And if you criticize Israel you are anti-semitic

True.

I support 'celebrities tax'. Any and all celebrities that publicly support socialism and redistribution of wealth should have the chance to give 50-80% of their assets to the state, but they must accept or refuse publicly so we now just how dedicated they are.

Miencraft, Metis Alberta

The Completly Oppressive States wrote:By the way I'd like to mention that the regional map is propaganda against my glorious state. It is borderline sedition not to include my people and my glorious monuments to the map.

You can talk to Miencraft about being added to the map. I don’t know if he will add you or not, but I think he would be willing to listen to you.

Happy Constitution Day to all! Enjoy your freedoms responsibly!

Rateria

The Liberty Brigades wrote:Happy Constitution Day to all! Enjoy your freedoms responsibly!

Free-doms?

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