|
Title: To the new Parties Post by: MyRescueKittehRocks on January 28, 2012, 08:37:50 PM Now that the old parties have been dissolved I would like the leaders of the new parties come here and explain what would make me want to join your party so I can see which would be best for my views.
Thank you and let the discussion begin. JCL (-IN) Title: Re: To the new Parties Post by: Lambsbread on January 28, 2012, 08:48:54 PM Hi, I'm 20RP12 and I formed the Individual Freedom Party.
We are a party that advocates fiscal Conservatism and social Libertarianism, specifically smaller, more efficient Government. We'd love to have you join :) x 20RP12 Title: Re: To the new Parties Post by: Simfan34 on January 28, 2012, 08:49:04 PM While I'm skeptical you would find our party to be the right fit for you, if you consider:
-a party that promotes social capital and strong civic institutions as they are the best way to advance and maintain democracy -a party that believes in the government, as an arm of the people, can help advance the well being of the people, but should not dominate them, their lives, or their business -a party that believes in a society of values, those namely being mutual respect, social stability, toleration and diversity, tradition, and an interest in the common good -a party that promotes an internationalist and multilateral foreign policy yet a robust defense policy -a party that elevates and supports science and the arts -a party that thinks in terms of the long-term and making investments in the future to be a party that closely fits your views, then I would suggest you join us in the Communitarian Party. Title: Re: To the new Parties Post by: Hatman 🍁 on January 28, 2012, 08:51:56 PM While I'm a leader of a new party, I doubt you'd be interested, so I will not waste my time.
Long live the revolution! Title: Re: To the new Parties Post by: MyRescueKittehRocks on January 28, 2012, 08:57:00 PM To the Communtarians and the IFP and other parties
What are your views on the substanative issues of the day? Role of government Fiscal Matters: Re the debt crises and solutions Foreign Policy Civil Liberties Abortion Marriage Religious Freedom Education Immigration Title: Re: To the new Parties Post by: Hash on January 28, 2012, 09:06:19 PM The Communist Party is the only real party which stands for The Revolution. The Secretary-General, aka me, has a copy of the Granma at home. Nobody can claim that, meaning that those who claim to speak in the name of the revolution are only capitalist impostors out there to fraud the people. For Strong People!
Our views: Role of government: Protect and Serve the People, Guide the Revolutionary Exercise. We will get in contact with those who had decided to vote for CPA and at the last moment did not manage to take this courageous and essential step under the influence of the propaganda for a self-sufficient government. Fiscal Matters: We must not miss an hour. Now it’s time for organization and struggle so that the plutocracy pays for the crisis; to struggle for the satisfaction of people’s modern needs. The only path for the workers is the path of resistance - popular alliance - counterattack. The government of JCP and the social-democrats are ruthless in crushing the workers’ rights and have unveiled their true face early. Foreign Policy: The people must condemn the provocative acts of aggression of the EU and the position of the Atlasian government. The struggle of the people against the barbaric measures of the government and Troika must be combined with the struggle for the disengagement of the country from the imperialist organizations, their interventions and the wars that they bring. The CPA calls on the workers, the self-employed, the youth and the women in an all-people’s rally with the following line: End to the sacrifices for the interests of the monopolies. The people should become neither victimizer nor victim in the imperialist war. Civil Liberties: A lie by capitalists and their ilk to trick the proletariat into blindly following the bourgeoisie. Abortion: Nobody cares. Marriage: Sham. Religious Freedom: Religion is the Opium of the People. Education: Must not be bourgeois education, whose use is the formation of a bourgeois capitalist elite which can continue the oppression of the proletariat. Immigration: Nobody cares. Title: Re: To the new Parties Post by: Lambsbread on January 28, 2012, 09:07:13 PM Role of government Fiscal Matters: Re the debt crises and solutions Foreign Policy Civil Liberties Abortion Marriage Religious Freedom Education Immigration The role of Government is to serve its people and not to infringe or restrict their rights. There's always room to cut spending. The IFP advocates a humble foreign policy that shuns the idea of nation building and instead offers that we befriend and trade with countries. Basically, Non-Interventionism. We believe that Atlasians are entitled to many civil liberties, such as marriage, the choice to smoke marijuana, right to protest, etc. We discourage abortion and believe that it should not be federally funded, but we believe it should be legal. We believe that this is a regional issue, but we personally adopt principles encouraging marriage equality. We believe that all Atlasians have the right to practice whatever religion they choose, regardless of what it is. We believe that creation of curriculum should be left to the regions. We also advocate school choice. We believe that while immigration is an extremely long process, it should be done legally in order to gain citizenship. We believe that if you are here illegally, you should at least go about filling out the proper paper work first. Thank you! Title: Re: To the new Parties Post by: FEMA Camp Administrator on January 28, 2012, 09:45:08 PM JCL, you'd probably end up like this: agreeing with the IFP on fiscal and foreign policy matters and agreeing with the CPA on social issues. The CPA though isn't completely opposed to your views on economics and foreign policy, they are moderate on both. It's a matter of which views you're willing to compromise. :P
Title: Re: To the new Parties Post by: Simfan34 on January 28, 2012, 09:50:20 PM Role of government- The government, in a democratic society, is an extension of the people. Thus the role of government should be determined by the desires and the interests of the people and the furthering of our well-being as a nation.
Fiscal Matters: Re the debt crises and solutions- We support fiscal responsibility and will look at systems to reform entitlement spending, military spending, and needless waste; however the government must continue to meet its obligations- both to lenders and the people Foreign Policy- We promote a internationalist and multilateral foreign policy yet a robust defense policy. We shy away from needless foreign interventions, but are committed to defending our country and achieving the goals we set out in both our diplomacy and military actions. In regards to "nation building", we stand opposed to continued military operations to achieve political and societal goals abroad, and to that extent support aid and multilateral peacekeeping to accomplish those goals at a substantially lesser cost to both life and money Civil Liberties- We support civil liberties in general, but are supportive of maintaining social cohesion, increasing social capital, and are mindful of tradition in general. Abortion- We generally oppose abortion, and to that extent are in favor of making abortion rarer and encouraging other options for the preservation of the life of the unborn. We are hopeful that with medical advances that abortion will be reduced Marriage- The status of marriage should remain as it is currently. We support the idea of marriage and believe that the nuclear family, composed of two married parents* and children, is the optimal form of the family, and is most ingenious way of raising responsible children and citizens. Religious Freedom- All Atlasians are entitled to hold the religious beliefs they choose. Religious organizations are an example of the organic communities on which our nation is built on, and should be left alone as long as they do not act in a manner that his harmful to the body politic. Education- We believe that all Atlasians are entitled to a free and public education. While we strongly support a coherent national curriculum and common core standards, education should largely be the purview of the regions. We also support school choice, charter schools, and vouchers- whatever allows students to receive the best education; however public schools should be strengthened as well. Immigration- Immigration strengthens and enrichens Atlasia- we are all, with the exception of First Nations peoples, Immigrants. We should encourage it and lower the legal barriers skilled individuals and international students face coming to and staying Atlasia. However we must stem the tide of illegal immigration as it harms our economy and subverts civil society and communities. *I am deliberately not saying "husband and wife" Title: Re: To the new Parties Post by: Hash on January 28, 2012, 09:52:03 PM JCL, you'd probably end up like this: agreeing with the IFP on fiscal and foreign policy matters and agreeing with the CPA on social issues. The CPA though isn't completely opposed to your views on economics and foreign policy, they are moderate on both. It's a matter of which views you're willing to compromise. :P The only CPA is the one which fights for the proletariat, not your bourgeois sham party! Title: Re: To the new Parties Post by: Simfan34 on January 28, 2012, 09:57:09 PM JCL, you'd probably end up like this: agreeing with the IFP on fiscal and foreign policy matters and agreeing with the CPA on social issues. The CPA though isn't completely opposed to your views on economics and foreign policy, they are moderate on both. It's a matter of which views you're willing to compromise. :P The only CPA is the one which fights for the proletariat, not your bourgeois sham party! We have 2 CPAs! Title: Re: To the new Parties Post by: Lambsbread on January 28, 2012, 10:06:10 PM JCL, you'd probably end up like this: agreeing with the IFP on fiscal and foreign policy matters and agreeing with the CPA on social issues. The CPA though isn't completely opposed to your views on economics and foreign policy, they are moderate on both. It's a matter of which views you're willing to compromise. :P The only CPA is the one which fights for the proletariat, not your bourgeois sham party! He was talking about the Communitarian Party :P Title: Re: To the new Parties Post by: Simfan34 on January 28, 2012, 10:07:12 PM JCL, you'd probably end up like this: agreeing with the IFP on fiscal and foreign policy matters and agreeing with the CPA on social issues. The CPA though isn't completely opposed to your views on economics and foreign policy, they are moderate on both. It's a matter of which views you're willing to compromise. :P The only CPA is the one which fights for the proletariat, not your bourgeois sham party! He was talking about the Communitarian Party :P Our CPA, then. Title: Re: To the new Parties Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on January 28, 2012, 10:10:03 PM JCL, you'd probably end up like this: agreeing with the IFP on fiscal and foreign policy matters and agreeing with the CPA on social issues. The CPA though isn't completely opposed to your views on economics and foreign policy, they are moderate on both. It's a matter of which views you're willing to compromise. :P To cut it short... you're screwed. Title: Re: To the new Parties Post by: Lambsbread on January 28, 2012, 10:10:57 PM JCL, you'd probably end up like this: agreeing with the IFP on fiscal and foreign policy matters and agreeing with the CPA on social issues. The CPA though isn't completely opposed to your views on economics and foreign policy, they are moderate on both. It's a matter of which views you're willing to compromise. :P To cut it short... you're screwed. Hey man, the IFP is a great party! :P Title: Re: To the new Parties Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on January 28, 2012, 10:16:07 PM JCL, you'd probably end up like this: agreeing with the IFP on fiscal and foreign policy matters and agreeing with the CPA on social issues. The CPA though isn't completely opposed to your views on economics and foreign policy, they are moderate on both. It's a matter of which views you're willing to compromise. :P To cut it short... you're screwed. Hey man, the IFP is a great party! :P That's not really the issue... in order to fit into either party, he'll have to compromise... and JCL is pretty much constitutionally incapable of such a complicated act. Title: Re: To the new Parties Post by: MyRescueKittehRocks on January 28, 2012, 10:31:14 PM SimFan: I would say father and mother as I wholeheartedly oppose GLBT adoptions or marriage outright. It's this reason I wasn't appointed by the current Mideast Governor. Are both the Communtarians and IFP pro-regional sovreginity in our duel federalist system?
Polnut: Freedom brings people together. On core personal principals though I will stand like a stonewall even if I stand alone. IRL Dr Paul has done much work with both the left and the right building coalitions regarding individual liberties (look at the recent opposition to SOPA and PIP) Cathcon: That is a good assessment of my quandary. That is why I decided put this thread together so I could make an informed decision. Title: Re: To the new Parties Post by: Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian. on January 28, 2012, 10:35:42 PM Marriage- The status of marriage should remain as it is currently. We support the idea of marriage and believe that the nuclear family, composed of two married parents* and children, is the optimal form of the family, and is most ingenious way of raising responsible children and citizens. To be honest, I prefer multigenerational extended families to nuclear families. What are your feelings on that subject? Title: Re: To the new Parties Post by: Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian. on January 28, 2012, 10:46:32 PM Chairman of the Social Democratic Union (Name Subject To Change) here.
Role of government- The government is the natural extension of the people in accordance with democratic principles. Its role is that of a mediator between interest groups in society and a protector of those who would be weaker without its presence. Fiscal Matters- While I doubt any of us would if asked say that we think there is somehow something intrinsically good about high taxation and spending, we believe that these things are far preferable to what we see Atlasia as running the danger of becoming without them. Foreign Policy- None of us are warmongers and in general we support a strong but multilateral and humanitarian-focused international presence. We don't all have the same opinions on foreign trade but for the most part we are more in favor of free movement of labor than free movement of capital. It's all about what trade policies are judged to be best for the working man and woman both here and abroad. Civil Liberties- We support absolute freedom of peaceful political speech but do not believe that unlimited private political spending is either required for or necessarily conducive to such freedom. Abortion- I don't believe we (yet?) have arrived at any official position on abortion. My feeling is that I am probably much less in support of it than most of the party rank and file, but I could be wrong. Marriage- The status of marriage should remain as it is currently. We support Atlasia's marriage equality and oppose any attempts to roll it back or undermine it. Religious Freedom- We support amicable separation of church and state and freedom of religious conviction in the Atlasian political and cultural tradition; not hostile separation as in some continental European traditions. Education- We believe strongly in public schooling at all levels, including strengthening our state university systems in order to provide the best and broadest-based higher education to all Atlasians regardless of class. Immigration- Most of us support freedom of movement. I am personally in support of amnesty for peaceful and permanent undocumented immigrants. Title: Re: To the new Parties Post by: MyRescueKittehRocks on January 28, 2012, 10:53:27 PM Nathan: What about the rights of the regions?
Title: Re: To the new Parties Post by: Lambsbread on January 28, 2012, 10:53:32 PM The IFP whole-heartedly supports Regional Sovereignty, yes.
Title: Re: To the new Parties Post by: Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian. on January 28, 2012, 10:59:57 PM Nathan: What about the rights of the regions? Rights of the regions in what respect? Within the framework of making sure that every Atlasian citizen has access to his or her own rights, immunities, life and limb, education, square meals, and opportunity to work, we're entirely in support of regions tailoring specific policies to fit their unique needs and circumstances. Title: Re: To the new Parties Post by: MyRescueKittehRocks on January 28, 2012, 11:06:41 PM Nathan: What about the rights of the regions? Rights of the regions in what respect? Within the framework of making sure that every Atlasian citizen has access to his or her own rights, immunities, life and limb, education, square meals, and opportunity to work, we're entirely in support of regions tailoring specific policies to fit their unique needs and circumstances. What I ment is the right of the regions to disagree and not enforce or override via law the federal government when conscience and constuition dictates (ie Nullification) In the manner of how many of the states are opposed to Obamacare on the grounds of its interference with the 10 th amendment rights of the states? Title: Re: To the new Parties Post by: FEMA Camp Administrator on January 28, 2012, 11:13:59 PM Why do you oppose gay adoption. Sure, some of us might prefer that gay couples not exist, but they do. I'd rather have a child growing up in a family, as non-traditional as it might be (short of crime, etc.) than in a government orphanage. Those kids that are stuck there will hardly be ready for the world when they leave at the age of eighteen, and it's better in my opinion to have them growing up in a household.
Title: Re: To the new Parties Post by: CLARENCE 2015! on January 28, 2012, 11:14:55 PM Why do you oppose gay adoption. Sure, some of us might prefer that gay couples not exist, but they do. I'd rather have a child growing up in a family, as non-traditional as it might be (short of crime, etc.) than in a government orphanage. Those kids that are stuck there will hardly be ready for the world when they leave at the age of eighteen, and it's better in my opinion to have them growing up in a household. Amen...rather in a gay household then aborted Title: Re: To the new Parties Post by: Teddy (IDS Legislator) on January 28, 2012, 11:15:39 PM Why do you oppose gay adoption. Sure, some of us might prefer that gay couples not exist, but they do. I'd rather have a child growing up in a family, as non-traditional as it might be (short of crime, etc.) than in a government orphanage. Those kids that are stuck there will hardly be ready for the world when they leave at the age of eighteen, and it's better in my opinion to have them growing up in a household. Amen...rather in a gay household then aborted Title: Re: To the new Parties Post by: Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian. on January 28, 2012, 11:16:32 PM Nathan: What about the rights of the regions? Rights of the regions in what respect? Within the framework of making sure that every Atlasian citizen has access to his or her own rights, immunities, life and limb, education, square meals, and opportunity to work, we're entirely in support of regions tailoring specific policies to fit their unique needs and circumstances. What I ment is the right of the regions to disagree and not enforce or override via law the federal government when conscience and constuition dictates (ie Nullification) In the manner of how many of the states are opposed to Obamacare on the grounds of its interference with the 10 th amendment rights of the states? They're perfectly free to do that and take it up with the Supreme Court. If the law's genuinely unconstitutional that's fine once the courts sort it out but not enforcing federal law simply on account of 'conscience' is itself unconstitutional. To be perfectly honest I don't think this is something that most people in the SDU (NSTC) are terribly concerned about, relative to other issues. Title: Re: To the new Parties Post by: Simfan34 on January 28, 2012, 11:19:09 PM Marriage- The status of marriage should remain as it is currently. We support the idea of marriage and believe that the nuclear family, composed of two married parents* and children, is the optimal form of the family, and is most ingenious way of raising responsible children and citizens. To be honest, I prefer multigenerational extended families to nuclear families. What are your feelings on that subject? While we believe multigenerational families have many advantages, and are arguably superior in achieving the aforementioned goals than the nuclear family, modern society does not really have the multigenerational family as a common unit. It has our full support and shall in no way be discouraged by our platform As for gay adoption, I think Cathcon and Clarence have stated the position of the party quite well. We are for familial stability- that's the bottom line. Why do you oppose gay adoption. Sure, some of us might prefer that gay couples not exist, but they do. I'd rather have a child growing up in a family, as non-traditional as it might be (short of crime, etc.) than in a government orphanage. Those kids that are stuck there will hardly be ready for the world when they leave at the age of eighteen, and it's better in my opinion to have them growing up in a household. Amen...rather in a gay household then aborted I don't see it like that. We have two married parents and children. Many liberals reject that model as outdated. We don't. Just because the parents may be of the same sex, doesn't make it progressive. Title: Re: To the new Parties Post by: Lambsbread on January 28, 2012, 11:20:32 PM I echo the statements of Cathcon and Clarence.
Title: Re: To the new Parties Post by: Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian. on January 28, 2012, 11:21:30 PM Marriage- The status of marriage should remain as it is currently. We support the idea of marriage and believe that the nuclear family, composed of two married parents* and children, is the optimal form of the family, and is most ingenious way of raising responsible children and citizens. To be honest, I prefer multigenerational extended families to nuclear families. What are your feelings on that subject? While we believe multigenerational families have many advantages, and are arguably superior in achieving the aforementioned goals than the nuclear family, modern society does not really have the multigenerational family as a common unit. It has our full support and shall in no way be discouraged by our platform As for gay adoption, I think Cathcon and Clarence have stated the position of the party quite well. We are for familial stability- that's the bottom line. As a member of one of those few remaining stable multigenerational families (that doesn't all live in one place but whose members are in much closer contact than most aunts and uncles and nephews and nieces and cousins these days), good. I sometimes wonder if anything can be done to make the extended family a more relevant social unit again, but I haven't yet thought of anything. Title: Re: To the new Parties Post by: Simfan34 on January 28, 2012, 11:23:34 PM Marriage- The status of marriage should remain as it is currently. We support the idea of marriage and believe that the nuclear family, composed of two married parents* and children, is the optimal form of the family, and is most ingenious way of raising responsible children and citizens. To be honest, I prefer multigenerational extended families to nuclear families. What are your feelings on that subject? While we believe multigenerational families have many advantages, and are arguably superior in achieving the aforementioned goals than the nuclear family, modern society does not really have the multigenerational family as a common unit. It has our full support and shall in no way be discouraged by our platform As for gay adoption, I think Cathcon and Clarence have stated the position of the party quite well. We are for familial stability- that's the bottom line. As a member of one of those few remaining stable multigenerational families (that doesn't all live in one place but whose members are in much closer contact than most aunts and uncles and nephews and nieces and cousins these days), good. I sometimes wonder if anything can be done to make the extended family a more relevant social unit again, but I haven't yet thought of anything. We would be more than willing to support that movement. I kind of feel like you should be in our party! Title: Re: To the new Parties Post by: Napoleon on January 28, 2012, 11:24:34 PM Your party got hijacked by the far right...
Title: Re: To the new Parties Post by: Simfan34 on January 28, 2012, 11:25:34 PM The CPA is center-right- more socially rightist than it is economically rightist.
Title: Re: To the new Parties Post by: MyRescueKittehRocks on January 28, 2012, 11:26:25 PM Why do you oppose gay adoption. Sure, some of us might prefer that gay couples not exist, but they do. I'd rather have a child growing up in a family, as non-traditional as it might be (short of crime, etc.) than in a government orphanage. Those kids that are stuck there will hardly be ready for the world when they leave at the age of eighteen, and it's better in my opinion to have them growing up in a household. I've heard of a LGBT couple in California that are giving shots to their adopted son to suppress his masculinity. The worse part is that this couple professes to be Jewish. Science proves that childern are best raised in a home with a married father and mother anything else and that kid will struggle with his or her self-identity. I firmly believe in family stability. However gay marriage and adoption is a line I will not cross. Title: Re: To the new Parties Post by: Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian. on January 28, 2012, 11:28:45 PM The CPA is center-right- more socially rightist than it is economically rightist. That's still further right than I'm necessarily comfortable with. Besides, the Social Democratic Union (Name Subject To Change) specifically sent for me to be its first Chairman and to the best of my knowledge there weren't even any other candidates. I can't just leave them at the altar! I'd have to run this by my rank and file first, but I'd definitely be up for possible agreements or alliances on areas where our parties find agreement. Why do you oppose gay adoption. Sure, some of us might prefer that gay couples not exist, but they do. I'd rather have a child growing up in a family, as non-traditional as it might be (short of crime, etc.) than in a government orphanage. Those kids that are stuck there will hardly be ready for the world when they leave at the age of eighteen, and it's better in my opinion to have them growing up in a household. I've heard of a LGBT couple in California that are giving shots to their adopted son to suppress his masculinity. The worse part is that this couple professes to be Jewish. Science proves that childern are best raised in a home with a married father and mother anything else and that kid will struggle with his or her self-identity. I firmly believe in family stability. However gay marriage and adoption is a line I will not cross. Anti-gay adoption: Because the plural of anecdote is data! Title: Re: To the new Parties Post by: Lambsbread on January 28, 2012, 11:29:39 PM The IFP is Libertarian/Center-Right.
Title: Re: To the new Parties Post by: Simfan34 on January 28, 2012, 11:36:24 PM Why do you oppose gay adoption. Sure, some of us might prefer that gay couples not exist, but they do. I'd rather have a child growing up in a family, as non-traditional as it might be (short of crime, etc.) than in a government orphanage. Those kids that are stuck there will hardly be ready for the world when they leave at the age of eighteen, and it's better in my opinion to have them growing up in a household. I've heard of a LGBT couple in California that are giving shots to their adopted son to suppress his masculinity. The worse part is that this couple professes to be Jewish. Science proves that childern are best raised in a home with a married father and mother anything else and that kid will struggle with his or her self-identity. I firmly believe in family stability. However gay marriage and adoption is a line I will not cross. That is a failing of the people as a couple, forcing sexuality upon him, not of gay people in general. I will propose that the CPA support legislation illegalizing the forcing of sexuality upon children. The CPA is center-right- more socially rightist than it is economically rightist. That's still further right than I'm necessarily comfortable with. Besides, the Social Democratic Union (Name Subject To Change) specifically sent for me to be its first Chairman and to the best of my knowledge there weren't even any other candidates. I can't just leave them at the altar! I'd have to run this by my rank and file first, but I'd definitely be up for possible agreements or alliances on areas where our parties find agreement. Why do you oppose gay adoption. Sure, some of us might prefer that gay couples not exist, but they do. I'd rather have a child growing up in a family, as non-traditional as it might be (short of crime, etc.) than in a government orphanage. Those kids that are stuck there will hardly be ready for the world when they leave at the age of eighteen, and it's better in my opinion to have them growing up in a household. I've heard of a LGBT couple in California that are giving shots to their adopted son to suppress his masculinity. The worse part is that this couple professes to be Jewish. Science proves that childern are best raised in a home with a married father and mother anything else and that kid will struggle with his or her self-identity. I firmly believe in family stability. However gay marriage and adoption is a line I will not cross. Anti-gay adoption: Because the plural of anecdote is data Well, I wish you the best of success ,and I hope we can work together for families, communities, and Atlasia. Title: Re: To the new Parties Post by: Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian. on January 28, 2012, 11:42:57 PM Well, I wish you the best of success ,and I hope we can work together for families, communities, and Atlasia. Likewise. After we finish our name and blazon voting, I'll be calling for a party convention (I've suggested either Boston or Chicago) and at that point I will definitely be bringing up our possible relations with other parties, including yours. Also, I just noticed that I used the word 'agreement' twice in one sentence in different senses in my last post. Sorry about that, everyone! Title: Re: To the new Parties Post by: Simfan34 on January 29, 2012, 12:06:24 AM And both were understood. :)
Title: Re: To the new Parties Post by: Sewer on January 29, 2012, 12:06:32 AM I don't know who to join.
:( Title: Re: To the new Parties Post by: MyRescueKittehRocks on January 29, 2012, 12:06:52 AM SimFan: That is a good idea. I'd also encourage a strong stance against the sex slave trade and human trafficking.
Senator 20RP12: Would you agree with regards to human trafficking and the sex slave trade? At the moment I would consider myself as a Crossbencher betwixt both the IFP and the Communtarian/Whig Parties as I personally have so many agreements with both party platforms. If I were to formally join one over the other I would create a caucus to help promote alliances when needed. For instance if I go Communtarian/Whig it would be a Paulite based fiscal conservative group. If I go IFP I'd have a pro-life/Family Vaues caucus to help bridge the gaps. I'm already at present part of the Pro-Life Caucus at the moment. Title: Re: To the new Parties Post by: Lambsbread on January 29, 2012, 12:07:33 AM I don't know who to join. :( The IFP has brownies and cupcakes! :D Title: Re: To the new Parties Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on January 29, 2012, 12:08:01 AM Why do you oppose gay adoption. Sure, some of us might prefer that gay couples not exist, but they do. I'd rather have a child growing up in a family, as non-traditional as it might be (short of crime, etc.) than in a government orphanage. Those kids that are stuck there will hardly be ready for the world when they leave at the age of eighteen, and it's better in my opinion to have them growing up in a household. I've heard of a LGBT couple in California that are giving shots to their adopted son to suppress his masculinity. The worse part is that this couple professes to be Jewish. Science proves that childern are best raised in a home with a married father and mother anything else and that kid will struggle with his or her self-identity. I firmly believe in family stability. However gay marriage and adoption is a line I will not cross. Evidence? Oh... and the worst part is professed Judaism? Title: Re: To the new Parties Post by: Lambsbread on January 29, 2012, 12:08:59 AM Senator 20RP12: Would you agree with regards to human trafficking and the sex slave trade? I absolutely oppose human trafficking and the sex slave trade and I believe that we must find a way to end it. Especially when it comes to underaged girls being kidnapped for the sex trade. Title: Re: To the new Parties Post by: bgwah on January 29, 2012, 12:09:32 AM I don't know who to join. :( The Earth Liberation Front Title: Re: To the new Parties Post by: Napoleon on January 29, 2012, 12:09:58 AM I don't know who to join. :( Liberal Party! Title: Re: To the new Parties Post by: TJ in Oregon on January 29, 2012, 12:10:44 AM I don't know who to join. :( The IFP has brownies and cupcakes! :D Somehow I wouldn't trust your brownies... Title: Re: To the new Parties Post by: Lambsbread on January 29, 2012, 12:11:35 AM I don't know who to join. :( The IFP has brownies and cupcakes! :D Somehow I wouldn't trust your brownies... Shhh...just enjoy the pretty colors and mellow out to Pink Floyd, man... Title: Re: To the new Parties Post by: FEMA Camp Administrator on January 29, 2012, 12:13:55 AM I don't know who to join. :( The IFP has brownies and cupcakes! :D Somehow I wouldn't trust your brownies... Shhh...just enjoy the pretty colors and mellow out to Pink Floyd, man... Man... Title: Re: To the new Parties Post by: Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian. on January 29, 2012, 12:14:04 AM I don't know who to join. :( The IFP has brownies and cupcakes! :D Somehow I wouldn't trust your brownies... Maybe you'd prefer the SDU (NSTC)'s whiskey and hard candy. The creature comforts of the Working Man. Title: Re: To the new Parties Post by: TJ in Oregon on January 29, 2012, 12:15:48 AM I don't know who to join. :( The IFP has brownies and cupcakes! :D Somehow I wouldn't trust your brownies... Maybe you'd prefer the SDU (NSTC)'s whiskey and hard candy. The creature comforts of the Working Man. Probably. When it comes to alcohol I only drink the hard stuff because it's the only stuff that tastes halfway decent and isn't reserved for females. Title: Re: To the new Parties Post by: Lambsbread on January 29, 2012, 12:17:21 AM I don't know who to join. :( The IFP has brownies and cupcakes! :D Somehow I wouldn't trust your brownies... Shhh...just enjoy the pretty colors and mellow out to Pink Floyd, man... Man... () Faaaaar out... Title: Re: To the new Parties Post by: FEMA Camp Administrator on January 29, 2012, 12:19:38 AM I don't know who to join. :( The IFP has brownies and cupcakes! :D Somehow I wouldn't trust your brownies... Shhh...just enjoy the pretty colors and mellow out to Pink Floyd, man... Man... () Faaaaar out... Trippin' dude! Title: Re: To the new Parties Post by: TJ in Oregon on January 29, 2012, 12:21:44 AM To JCL...
I think you would probably be better off in the Communitarian Party than the Individual Freedom Party since the CPA the two are farther apart on social issues than they are on fiscal issues. Certainly neither is everything you are looking for in a party (heck, I don't agree with some of the stuff Simfan said in this thread) but that's part of being in a party. We aren't as far to the left fiscally as our name might suggest either. Look at our membership, we have many more fiscal conservatives than liberals in our ranks. Title: Re: To the new Parties Post by: Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian. on January 29, 2012, 12:23:26 AM I don't know who to join. :( The IFP has brownies and cupcakes! :D Somehow I wouldn't trust your brownies... Maybe you'd prefer the SDU (NSTC)'s whiskey and hard candy. The creature comforts of the Working Man. Probably. When it comes to alcohol I only drink the hard stuff because it's the only stuff that tastes halfway decent and isn't reserved for females. I can only stomach highly diluted whiskey but the taste isn't bad. I actually prefer sweet dessert wines, which are reserved for women or very elderly men, but then I'm at heart at least one of those things anyway, possibly both, so yeah... My favorite type of hard candy is candied ginger. That stuff's amazing, but it's definitely an acquired taste. Title: Re: To the new Parties Post by: Lambsbread on January 29, 2012, 12:23:54 AM However, if you join the IFP, you could start a Social Conservative-minded caucus, bringing diversity to the party.
Title: Re: To the new Parties Post by: MyRescueKittehRocks on January 29, 2012, 12:50:57 AM To JCL... I think you would probably be better off in the Communitarian Party than the Individual Freedom Party since the CPA the two are farther apart on social issues than they are on fiscal issues. Certainly neither is everything you are looking for in a party (heck, I don't agree with some of the stuff Simfan said in this thread) but that's part of being in a party. We aren't as far to the left fiscally as our name might suggest either. Look at our membership, we have many more fiscal conservatives than liberals in our ranks. I know I have like minded folks socially (Many of the Pro-Life Caucus is here) in the party but I want to help unite the conservative factions to have a shot of bringing a small government conservative agenda to help Atlasia. The left is doing so and it would hurt us if we didn't. A way to do so would be almost as right/libertarian on economics. What are the parties views on Right to Work (aka open shop factories vs closed shop union factory regions) IRL Indiana will become Right to Work within the next few weeks. Title: Re: To the new Parties Post by: Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian. on January 29, 2012, 12:52:16 AM We firmly oppose Right to Scab in any and all incarnations. Unionization is the cornerstone of an equitable industrialized society.
Title: Re: To the new Parties Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on January 29, 2012, 01:10:14 AM I don't know who to join. :( The IFP has brownies and cupcakes! :D Somehow I wouldn't trust your brownies... Shhh...just enjoy the pretty colors and mellow out to Pink Floyd, man... Man... () Faaaaar out... ...Take me for a trip upon your magic swirlin ship. All my senses have been stripped and my hands can't feel to grip and my toes to numb to step... :D Title: Re: To the new Parties Post by: Fmr. Pres. Duke on January 29, 2012, 01:16:53 AM Which new party should I join? I've only known 1 party my whole life in Atlasia, and needless to say, I feel naked without my RPP. I need a new home or I need to leave :(
Title: Re: To the new Parties Post by: Jerseyrules on January 29, 2012, 01:20:39 AM Why do you oppose gay adoption. Sure, some of us might prefer that gay couples not exist, but they do. I'd rather have a child growing up in a family, as non-traditional as it might be (short of crime, etc.) than in a government orphanage. Those kids that are stuck there will hardly be ready for the world when they leave at the age of eighteen, and it's better in my opinion to have them growing up in a household. Amen...rather in a gay household then aborted Title: Re: To the new Parties Post by: MyRescueKittehRocks on January 29, 2012, 01:55:46 AM We firmly oppose Right to While I support the right to organize for the purpose of collective bargaining and guarantee of workplace safety I also equally hold to the belief that being forced to join a union as a requirement of employment in any industry is wrong. There are many "Regan/JFK Democrats" IRL who While think it wise to have unions think it dangerous to allow union dues to go to causes and political canidates who oppose their personal values. I am from one of the union towns in the Midwest that have many conservatives who work in the auto factories like Delphi, Chrysler/Fiat and Ford who think the unions are so historically in bed with the left that the conflict with many of their personal conservative values. Title: Re: To the new Parties Post by: tmthforu94 on January 29, 2012, 01:59:12 AM To Duke, JCL, and others undecided: Join the Pigs Wear Boots Confederation. You'll have a chance to have a direct impact on the game, and we will focus heavily on game reform so this game can be more enjoyable. Once that's solved, we'll start tackling other important issues.
We don't have a specific platform yet on the issues - that's up for the entire body as a whole. But we welcome those of all colors and stripes. Title: Re: To the new Parties Post by: Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian. on January 29, 2012, 02:11:46 AM We firmly oppose Right to While I support the right to organize for the purpose of collective bargaining and guarantee of workplace safety I also equally hold to the belief that being forced to join a union as a requirement of employment in any industry is wrong. There are many "Regan/JFK Democrats" IRL who While think it wise to have unions think it dangerous to allow union dues to go to causes and political canidates who oppose their personal values. I am from one of the union towns in the Midwest that have many conservatives who work in the auto factories like Delphi, Chrysler/Fiat and Ford who think the unions are so historically in bed with the left that the conflict with many of their personal conservative values. The solution to that is limits on political contributions, not taking a wrecking ball to the working class. Title: Re: To the new Parties Post by: MyRescueKittehRocks on January 29, 2012, 02:19:36 AM We firmly oppose Right to While I support the right to organize for the purpose of collective bargaining and guarantee of workplace safety I also equally hold to the belief that being forced to join a union as a requirement of employment in any industry is wrong. There are many "Regan/JFK Democrats" IRL who While think it wise to have unions think it dangerous to allow union dues to go to causes and political canidates who oppose their personal values. I am from one of the union towns in the Midwest that have many conservatives who work in the auto factories like Delphi, Chrysler/Fiat and Ford who think the unions are so historically in bed with the left that the conflict with many of their personal conservative values. The solution to that is limits on political contributions, not taking a wrecking ball to the working class. Allowing non union labor promotes competition and does not take a wreaking ball to the working class. Title: Re: To the new Parties Post by: Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian. on January 29, 2012, 02:22:54 AM We firmly oppose Right to While I support the right to organize for the purpose of collective bargaining and guarantee of workplace safety I also equally hold to the belief that being forced to join a union as a requirement of employment in any industry is wrong. There are many "Regan/JFK Democrats" IRL who While think it wise to have unions think it dangerous to allow union dues to go to causes and political canidates who oppose their personal values. I am from one of the union towns in the Midwest that have many conservatives who work in the auto factories like Delphi, Chrysler/Fiat and Ford who think the unions are so historically in bed with the left that the conflict with many of their personal conservative values. The solution to that is limits on political contributions, not taking a wrecking ball to the working class. Allowing non union labor promotes competition and does not take a wreaking ball to the working class. Non-Right to Work doesn't 'disallow' non-union labor by any means. Regardless, I don't think you and the SDU (NSTC) will or would be a good fit in either direction, for several reasons. Title: Re: To the new Parties Post by: MyRescueKittehRocks on January 29, 2012, 02:37:57 AM Nathan: though we may be on opposing sides may we find a way to have an passionate yet amicable debate on the issues and maybe on an issue or two come together for the best of all Atlasians.
Title: Re: To the new Parties Post by: Teddy (IDS Legislator) on January 29, 2012, 02:48:18 AM If you are looking for non-amicable debate, I could tell off someone??
Title: Re: To the new Parties Post by: MyRescueKittehRocks on January 29, 2012, 02:53:02 AM If you are looking for non-amicable debate, I could tell off someone?? In my seeking a future party, I created this thread to make a fair and wise choice regarding my alliances going ahead. I'd like things to maintain the civility and at times fun that we all have in playing this game regardless of personal politics Title: Re: To the new Parties Post by: Teddy (IDS Legislator) on January 29, 2012, 02:55:12 AM If you are looking for non-amicable debate, I could tell off someone?? In my seeking a future party, I created this thread to make a fair and wise choice regarding my alliances going ahead. I'd like things to maintain the civility and at times fun that we all have in playing this game regardless of personal politics OH YEA? WELL!!! YOU SMELL!!! also, join the Liberals. Title: Re: To the new Parties Post by: Sewer on January 29, 2012, 04:22:02 AM To Duke, JCL, and others undecided: Join the Pigs Wear Boots Confederation. You'll have a chance to have a direct impact on the game, and we will focus heavily on game reform so this game can be more enjoyable. Once that's solved, we'll start tackling other important issues. We don't have a specific platform yet on the issues - that's up for the entire body as a whole. But we welcome those of all colors and stripes. This sounds nice. I will join this. Title: Re: To the new Parties Post by: Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian. on January 29, 2012, 04:31:08 AM Nathan: though we may be on opposing sides may we find a way to have an passionate yet amicable debate on the issues and maybe on an issue or two come together for the best of all Atlasians. Definitely. Title: Re: To the new Parties Post by: ZuWo on January 29, 2012, 05:10:43 AM Which new party should I join? I've only known 1 party my whole life in Atlasia, and needless to say, I feel naked without my RPP. I need a new home or I need to leave :( You would fit in well with the Moderate Party, I'd say - center right economically, liberal on social issues. Another party for you to have a look at could be the United Imperialist Front - the one and only Southern Party. Title: Re: To the new Parties Post by: Pingvin on January 29, 2012, 06:13:05 AM Which new party should I join? I've only known 1 party my whole life in Atlasia, and needless to say, I feel naked without my RPP. I need a new home or I need to leave :( Title: Re: To the new Parties Post by: Lambsbread on January 29, 2012, 09:55:19 AM Which new party should I join? I've only known 1 party my whole life in Atlasia, and needless to say, I feel naked without my RPP. I need a new home or I need to leave :( Duke, you'd be a great fit for the IFP! :D Title: Re: To the new Parties Post by: Simfan34 on January 29, 2012, 09:57:28 AM Which new party should I join? I've only known 1 party my whole life in Atlasia, and needless to say, I feel naked without my RPP. I need a new home or I need to leave :( On ZuWo's lines, I think the CPA is a bit to the right to you socially, but hey, every party needs its liberal wing. Title: Re: To the new Parties Post by: Yelnoc on January 29, 2012, 02:53:43 PM Which new party should I join? I've only known 1 party my whole life in Atlasia, and needless to say, I feel naked without my RPP. I need a new home or I need to leave :( Title: Re: To the new Parties Post by: ilikeverin on January 29, 2012, 03:26:37 PM Which new party should I join? I've only known 1 party my whole life in Atlasia, and needless to say, I feel naked without my RPP. I need a new home or I need to leave :( Clearly, the solution is LOONY! A chickenhawk in every potato, a carbonara in every garridge! Title: Re: To the new Parties Post by: bgwah on January 29, 2012, 03:28:07 PM Which new party should I join? I've only known 1 party my whole life in Atlasia, and needless to say, I feel naked without my RPP. I need a new home or I need to leave :( Clearly, the solution is LOONY! A chickenhawk in every potato, a carbonara in every garridge! No, u said u would join ELF! :( Title: Re: To the new Parties Post by: ilikeverin on January 29, 2012, 04:03:03 PM Which new party should I join? I've only known 1 party my whole life in Atlasia, and needless to say, I feel naked without my RPP. I need a new home or I need to leave :( Clearly, the solution is LOONY! A chickenhawk in every potato, a carbonara in every garridge! No, u said u would join ELF! :( Oh right. PARTY MERGER?? Title: Re: To the new Parties Post by: Fmr. Pres. Duke on January 29, 2012, 07:32:17 PM I kind of want to sit back and see how things stabilize in this new system. The Southern Party obviously speaks to me, as it reminds me of the early RPP, but when I choose a party, it's usually for life (or until we have a dissolution), so I want to make sure I find the right party for my ideology and one with a stable core. I suppose I am no longer allowed to have a leadership position in any new party, so I will see which I want to be a part of. :P
Title: Re: To the new Parties Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on January 29, 2012, 10:49:25 PM I kind of want to sit back and see how things stabilize in this new system. The Southern Party obviously speaks to me, as it reminds me of the early RPP, but when I choose a party, it's usually for life (or until we have a dissolution), so I want to make sure I find the right party for my ideology and one with a stable core. I suppose I am no longer allowed to have a leadership position in any new party, so I will see which I want to be a part of. :P Says who? The fanciful delusions of the supporters of this tripe? |