NationStates Jolt Archive

If I may, allow me to introduce myself. My name is Johnathan Williams and I'm the Plenipotentiary of the Free Republic of Sartreania. I always try my hardest to meet the desires of my people. However, the recent resolution put forth in the U.N. is giving me some trouble. I know that it is a good idea. I hate the ideas of any industry dumping dangerous waste into our environment. However, I'm already fairly strict on business and my people are taxed terribly for the civil liberties, political freedom, strong educational system, and other things which they have to enjoy. I'm trying to lower taxes because I don't want my people to suffer (although the monies they shell out are well spent). I don't want to hurt my economy (which was rather strong at one point, but is weak now because of the hard line my government draws...the businesses exist for the people, in our opinion, not the people for the businesses). I'm conflicted...I'm certain there are other nations in the same seat that I am. If so or if not, then what do you think is a wise move? I've a feeling the resolution will pass regardless of whether I vote against it, but...I don't want my nation's economy to suffer much more. There's much to be said for a strong economy.

J. Williams
Free Republic of Sartreania
Plenipotentiary

That's easy. STOP BEING A DEMOCRAT AND YOU CAN HAVE BOTH GOOD BUISNESS AND CIVIL RIGHTS.

Respectfully yours
The People's Republic of Calamshan

That's easy. STOP BEING A DEMOCRAT AND YOU CAN HAVE BOTH GOOD BUISNESS AND CIVIL RIGHTS.

Respectfully yours
The People's Republic of Calamshan

In much the same way as the USA's Republican Administration has created good business and civil rights right now?

Come off it.

The economy is rebounding after Clintons little depression, intrest rates are at an all time low, and baby's are no longer being stuck in the head and being killied while being birthed. Clinton had several terrorist attacks during his term (the world trade center the first time, the USS Cole, The US embassy in africa, the hotel in Saudi Arabia) and did nothing. So yes the ecomnomy is stronger, the most innocent among us got some civil rights, and were alot safer. I'd say being a republican is a heapo' alot better than the alternative!

Cheers!

I'd have to say that a bit of the information you gave was fallacious. Firstly, the Clinton economy was extremely powerful. It was never depressed until Bush came into office. The shakeup came after he started. Of course, then it went into the spiral after 9/11 (but that's to be expected.).

You talk about things Clinton failed at...fine and good (all of them much less substantial than our stupid wonder boy in office right now who has managed to cost us respect worldwide and estrange ourselves from very important allies in Europe for the gain of people in places like Camaroon, Cambodia, and the Marshall Islands...among others).

Clinton put away terrorist masterminds Ramzi Yousef, Abdul Hakim Murad, and Wali Khan Amin Shah. He thwarted plots to kill the Pope, to blow up twelve different jetliners, plots agains the UN headquarters, the FBI building, the Israeli embassy (Washington DC), LA and Boston Airports, Lincoln and Holland Tunnels, and the George Washington Bridge. He tripled the counterterrorism budget for the FBI, doubled couterterrorism funding and closed down Qaeda cells in twenty countries. He also created a national security post to coordinate federal counterterrorism activity.. Both of his crime bills passed powerful anti-terrorism legislation. Simulations were hosted to see how officials on all levels should respond to terrorist strikes . He put together a stockpile of drugs and vaccines (40,000,000 of smallpox, among others). He got foreign leaders to join into the fight internationally or within their own borders.

However, Republics fought Clinton tooth and nail over his anti-terrorism legislation. Orrin Hatch, "The administration would be wise to utilize the resources Congress has already provided before it requests additional funding."

Clinton advised expansion of intelligence agencies' wiretap authority, but Republicans rejected the idea...sullying the reputation of the FBI in the process

Clinton also had an obsession...Bin Laden. He passed a directive authorizing the assassination of Bin Laden. He was condemned for trying to assassinate a foreign head of state. I don't know when Bin Laden became that...later on when Bush came into power...those in power that were condemning were pretty into assassinating him, though.

After the Cole bombing, Clinton put Richard Clarke in charge of creating a plan to destroy all Al-Queda cells. This plan came out with such concepts as: breaking up al Qaeda cells and arresting personnel, freezing financial support for terrorist activities, freezing assets, stoping fake charitable funding, giving aid to governments that need help against Al Qaeda (Uzbekistan, Phillipines, and Yemen), and scaling up covert actions in Afghanistan to eliminate training camps and reach Bin Laden. He also proposed strengthening support for Northern Alliance and putting Spcial Forces into Afghanistan.

Basically, this plan mirrors what we've been doing since 9/11...but a bit more low key and a lot less likely to estrange the US from friends or make us seem ham fisted. The plan was passed off to Bush, but Bush ignored it when he came into his presidency...until later. Y'see, Bush got the information from Sandy Berger (Clinton's NSA)...he made ten different briefings for Rice...he said " I believe that the Bush administration will spend more time on terrorism in general, and on al Qaeda specifically, than any other subject."

Condoleezza declined to comment upon those briefings...denied their existence, but this quote exists in the NYTimes (Dec. 30, 2001). "As he prepared to leave office last January, Mr. Berger met with his successor, Condoleezza Rice, and gave her a warning. According to both of them, he said that therrorism--and particularly Mr. bin Laden's brand of it--would consume far more of her time than she had ever imagined."

Also...a white house official was questioned and stated that the briefings had occurred. Clarke was hired on as head of counter-terrorism, but apparently there was a quote from a member of the White House that stated "the Bush team thought the Clintonites had become obsessed with terrorism."

It seems to me that Bush was more interested in passing legislation to break down the boundaries between church and state, rubbing elbows and rewarding his corporate cronies and the richest people in the US with its tax cuts (those who really benefit are those that make upwards of $350,000, unless you meet very specific criterion to make the cut of those below. In order to really benefit from it in the middle class you're looking at a person (generally) who makes between 35,000 and 70,000 (a family), itemizes taxes, has no kids in day care, no kids in college, nobody attending night school, no children younger than one, and no real serious savings outside of a 401(k)...these criteria eliminate 85% of the couples in the income tax range...that 85% would have been far better off under Gore.

Under Bush, we have rampant cash and carry democracy (particularly corporate cronyism), a ridiculous amount of good ol' boy politics, old money favoritism, ethnocentric fascism, reactionism, diplomatic recessivism, environmental neglect, a shoddy education program (NCLB could be alright, but needs much more refinement) and countless lies circulating...I am not going to go into those, but I could...his supply side econo-quackery doesn't work...it didn't work for Reagan and it doesn't work for him. Anyway...umm...just want to remind you, too...Clinton era economy was the longest period of economic growth in American history.

Incidentally, some of this information comes from Franken's new book. If you want to read something sensible...a lot of it comes from "The Blame-America's-Ex-President-First-Crowd" and "Operation Ignore". It's really a fascinating read...as I recall...it's the kind of thing that reduced a "savvy" political analyst like O'Reilly to phrases like "Shut Up! Shut Up! Just Shut Up!!!"...because he had little to come back with.

Oh wait...the book might shatter your pro-republican delusions...maybe you should stay away.

Yeah, though...late term abortions have been stopped. I'm fine with that...it's inhumane, in my opinion.

and please...stop pretending like there is some massive difference between our two parties. On the political spectrum from anarchy to reactionary...they're not that far apart. However, the differences are growing in some cases, of late. It's just like labor vs. liberal in Australia or Torie vs. Labor in England. Anyway...I guess I made a mistake asking for suggestions. Nobody here really helped, at all.

Franken, Al. "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them." Dutton: New York, 2003.

The economy is rebounding after Clintons little depression, intrest rates are at an all time low, and baby's are no longer being stuck in the head and being killied while being birthed. Clinton had several terrorist attacks during his term (the world trade center the first time, the USS Cole, The US embassy in africa, the hotel in Saudi Arabia) and did nothing. So yes the ecomnomy is stronger, the most innocent among us got some civil rights, and were alot safer. I'd say being a republican is a heapo' alot better than the alternative!

Cheers!

Now...that's a stupid idea. The real depression didn't start until Bush came into office. I remember that day...the economy started to tailspin and people were talking about it. In the political science department at my college we were finding it interesting...he doesn't inspire much confidence in the American political system.

:zzzzz:

The economy is rebounding after Clintons little depression, intrest rates are at an all time low, and baby's are no longer being stuck in the head and being killied while being birthed. Clinton had several terrorist attacks during his term (the world trade center the first time, the USS Cole, The US embassy in africa, the hotel in Saudi Arabia) and did nothing. So yes the ecomnomy is stronger, the most innocent among us got some civil rights, and were alot safer. I'd say being a republican is a heapo' alot better than the alternative!

Cheers!
How in the nine levels of hell do you come off saying the Clinton years were a depression?? The nation's longest peroid of growth occured then and nearly no unemployment and he left office with a trillion dollar + surplus! and you call that a depression?

The economy is rebounding after Clintons little depression, intrest rates are at an all time low, and baby's are no longer being stuck in the head and being killied while being birthed. Clinton had several terrorist attacks during his term (the world trade center the first time, the USS Cole, The US embassy in africa, the hotel in Saudi Arabia) and did nothing. So yes the ecomnomy is stronger, the most innocent among us got some civil rights, and were alot safer. I'd say being a republican is a heapo' alot better than the alternative!

Cheers!

Now...that's a stupid idea. The real depression didn't start until Bush came into office. I remember that day...the economy started to tailspin and people were talking about it. In the political science department at my college we were finding it interesting...he doesn't inspire much confidence in the American political system.

You're being sarcastic, right? The decline actually started at the very end of Clinton. Besides, doesn't it seem a little odd that everyone claims that Bush crashed the economy as soon as he entered office?

I don't understand why people feel the need to blame the economy on the president, anyway. They don't have much control over it. What I think is funny though, is that commies blamed Bush for something he was given, and now that the economy is skyrocketing, they're saying that it's not enough and he didn't do anything about it. I'm tired of partisan politics.

The economy is rebounding after Clintons little depression, intrest rates are at an all time low, and baby's are no longer being stuck in the head and being killied while being birthed. Clinton had several terrorist attacks during his term (the world trade center the first time, the USS Cole, The US embassy in africa, the hotel in Saudi Arabia) and did nothing. So yes the ecomnomy is stronger, the most innocent among us got some civil rights, and were alot safer. I'd say being a republican is a heapo' alot better than the alternative!

Cheers!

Now...that's a stupid idea. The real depression didn't start until Bush came into office. I remember that day...the economy started to tailspin and people were talking about it. In the political science department at my college we were finding it interesting...he doesn't inspire much confidence in the American political system.

I personally liked CLinton. Despite his tax hikes, he was overall a good president. He was pro-free-trade and thus more centrist than most dems.

Anyways, just thought I'd like to point out the NASDAQ peaked on March the 20th of 2000, which is eight months before Bush came into office. A lot of people think this is because of the Microsoft thing. I think that's it's just the natural economic cycle that the Microsoft thing happened to aggravate.

The economic downturn started almost a year before Bush took office.

I personally liked CLinton. Despite his tax hikes, he was overall a good president. He was pro-free-trade and thus more centrist than most dems.

I liked Clinton too--especially his sexual ethics. The guy was FUN!!!

Our best advice is to not do what is expedient but to follow your conscience. Our actions have little predictable effect on what happens to our nations anyway.
Two weeks ago we were a scnadinavian liberal paradise. Last week we were an anarchy. This week we are "Kapitalizt". Go figure.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

bill clinton... what a man! during his presidency, he managed to cheat on his wife half a dozen times, go out on the weekends and get drunk (yes, it happened, and no, i didn't get my intel from the supermarket tabloids), and run away from every major potential conflict that happened during his presidency. The man decided that the "best" course of action in Kosovo was an air campaign. But hey, no soldiers lives were lost, so he's a hero, right? And the surplus. Just a result of the overtaxation that Americans gladly gave to the US government. Yeah, bill clinton, man of the people... yeah right!!! on a more serious and less cynical note, the guy was one of the worst presidents America ever had. The guy robbed us and created a surplus ("Sorry bill to inform you, but in a democracy, the surplus goes back to the people. If we were a dictatorship, then go for it, make as big of a surplus as you want!"). Under clinton, America temporarily ceased to be a superpower. I am basing this statement on the fact that a superpower, BY DEFINITION, will engage land troops in conflict, without all the paranoia that one newbie private might get hurt. While morally some have questioned the definition, the definition still stands, and clinton didn't follow it. How many actual armed conflicts did clinton send land troops into? The guy was a joke. And every expert analyst that is currently in the field has traced the current recession to results of decisions made during the clinton administration, not the bush administration. So basically, lay off, bush is a good man and he is TRYING to help the american people. I guess that is an idea foreign to the democratic party.

That's easy. STOP BEING A DEMOCRAT AND YOU CAN HAVE BOTH GOOD BUISNESS AND CIVIL RIGHTS.

Respectfully yours
The People's Republic of Calamshan

You must be kidding. The national debt and near repeal of our civil liberties during the last three years? Where do you GOPs bury your heads? Or are the drugs that Rush takes in all of your medicine cabinets?

Under clinton, America temporarily ceased to be a superpower. I am basing this statement on the fact that a superpower, BY DEFINITION, will engage land troops in conflict, without all the paranoia that one newbie private might get hurt. While morally some have questioned the definition, the definition still stands, and clinton didn't follow it. How many actual armed conflicts did clinton send land troops into? The guy was a joke.

Oh dear, oh dear.
Need I say more :?:

So basically, lay off, bush is a good man

Of course Doublya is a "good" man. Who isn't? He just happens to be a P*ss poor president.

and he is TRYING to help the american people.

Yes, because everyone knows that slashing public services is the best way to help the people! Shudumping international environmental treaties is good for every American and since america has an army the same size as the next twenty largest armies ADDED TOGETHER it's really worth his while increasing the defence budget; that is nothing to do with who sponsored his campaign and entirely to aid those poor impoverished businessmen trying to eek out a living owning arms companies.

Bush, and you, make me sick.

Bush is an illiterate, sorry excuse for a Prez. Need we say more? And since when did this thread turn into a US President Debate? I do believe John or whatever wanted input for his own country. And here's my recommendation:

You can't win anyway, but your vote helps. Your only hope for this resolution not passing would be to hope to GOD everyone else feels the same way you do. So you'd better become a hell of a good manipulator, buddy. Good Luck with that...

DCTR Natalya Antonescu
The Republic of Nevereskya

WTF?! The guy asks for some advice, and all the political assholes in the forum come out of the woodworks! Hey, why don't you fucking extremists-- both left and right-- shut the hell up if you can't stay on topic?!

There's only one rational approach to the UN - leave it. UN resolutions will progressively destroy your economy; if you want to provide social services or public goods, you're better off waiting for the appropriate issues to come around and dealing with each of them as you feel you can afford to do. That way you can build your economy up slowly and control your losses.
A suggestion: if you've already taken a socialist option on an issue, then the next time it appears, don't opt for more welfare/environment/rehabilitation/whatever - dismiss the issue.
For what it is worth, the opinion of Rational Self Interest is that the public interest, including that of the poor, is better served by a strong economy than by overt assistance. If the businesses exist for the people, let the businesses thrive, and they will serve the people better.

My name is Johnathan Williams

I Jon Williams used to go to my school, but he graduated last year.

You fools. The masses were never meant for self-government. They have always needed a guiding light, but in the case of the democracies you hold in such hig regards, the guiding light is reduced to a scapegoat. Humans are sheep. He-Who-is-Holy appoints the Shepherds. Aside from initial distrust of the people when I first siezed control from the weak democracy, there has not been a single failing in my nation. We have eradicated the evils of heresy and homosexuality. The people have no freedom because they are not equipped to do so. The Department of Family determines how each family should be together. Marriages are arranged, not by the parents, that would produce the falsity of love, but by the government. If two people can become productive members of society, they are married as early as they can survive away from their families. If not, they are left for dead. We have never had any record of an unhappy marriage, even with the joint sufferings, a married couple atoning together, often involving the two being tied together in some extremely painful environment for days on end. People are placed in their jobs based on their abilities. Believe it or not, this does not cancel out the arts. Our Cathedrals and the Necropolis, the City of Tombs, need to be decorated. Education is mandatory, and an unexcused abscence is answered with extra atonement. Abortion is illegal because we cannot yet determine if the unborn will be of use to us. Medical care is very good, although many patients die due to excessive atonement, by their own free will (I encourage only minimal atonement of the sick, the dying simply wait for the final Revelation).

Our best advice is to not do what is expedient but to follow your conscience. Our actions have little predictable effect on what happens to our nations anyway.
Two weeks ago we were a scnadinavian liberal paradise. Last week we were an anarchy. This week we are "Kapitalizt". Go figure.

Well put. I've decided that the nation should follow its conscience rather than its pocketbook. We've finally...well, *sniff* gotten our tax to 100%, but, by the gods...I've got a burgeoning population, strong rights and freedoms...and hell, the economy's even started to adjust and develop again after the shock of having a bit of a rough time. I'm being as friendly with them as I can so long as it doesn't hurt the people or environment. I'm going to stick to that, demmit.

There's only one rational approach to the UN - leave it. UN resolutions will progressively destroy your economy; if you want to provide social services or public goods, you're better off waiting for the appropriate issues to come around and dealing with each of them as you feel you can afford to do. That way you can build your economy up slowly and control your losses.
A suggestion: if you've already taken a socialist option on an issue, then the next time it appears, don't opt for more welfare/environment/rehabilitation/whatever - dismiss the issue.
For what it is worth, the opinion of Rational Self Interest is that the public interest, including that of the poor, is better served by a strong economy than by overt assistance. If the businesses exist for the people, let the businesses thrive, and they will serve the people better.

You make strong points. My problem with your idea upon business being in existence for the people is that well...it doesn't anymore. At one point businesses actually did, but now the people more exist for the benefit of the business. It's probably around the time that businesses really started buying off politicians for their own self-interest (which ran counter to the interests of the public like we see with the lobbying against media, environment, and pushing for legislation that makes it easier for business to more easily move out of country) that it really changed. America's an example...we were a republic, but now we're fiscal federalist with more than a hint of fascism. Nations are controlled by business and so are their people (their basic freedoms still exist, but pretty much always now, we've put a price tag on them). Life (and how much it costs to preserve it), liberty (and how much it costs to obtain or take away), and the pursuit of happiness (which can be free, but generally costs a shytload of money). Of course, those are the American basic rights...the first were written by John Locke (Life, Liberty, and Property) I don't know what nations subscribe to what set of basic human rights. Bah...I've spoken too much, but I've gotten the idea after reading this forum...I'm just going to bite the pill I believe in...and maybe push a few others who might be receptive to do the same.

Thanks.

You fools. The masses were never meant for self-government. They have always needed a guiding light, but in the case of the democracies you hold in such hig regards, the guiding light is reduced to a scapegoat. Humans are sheep. He-Who-is-Holy appoints the Shepherds. Aside from initial distrust of the people when I first siezed control from the weak democracy, there has not been a single failing in my nation. We have eradicated the evils of heresy and homosexuality. The people have no freedom because they are not equipped to do so. The Department of Family determines how each family should be together. Marriages are arranged, not by the parents, that would produce the falsity of love, but by the government. If two people can become productive members of society, they are married as early as they can survive away from their families. If not, they are left for dead. We have never had any record of an unhappy marriage, even with the joint sufferings, a married couple atoning together, often involving the two being tied together in some extremely painful environment for days on end. People are placed in their jobs based on their abilities. Believe it or not, this does not cancel out the arts. Our Cathedrals and the Necropolis, the City of Tombs, need to be decorated. Education is mandatory, and an unexcused abscence is answered with extra atonement. Abortion is illegal because we cannot yet determine if the unborn will be of use to us. Medical care is very good, although many patients die due to excessive atonement, by their own free will (I encourage only minimal atonement of the sick, the dying simply wait for the final Revelation).

Who let Stalin into this forum? :twisted:

Seriously man, you're kind of scary. I mean, Thomas Hobbes would applaud you, but...geez! I approve of the results, but I'll choose other ways to get them, thank ya.