NationStates Jolt Archive

who will win?

http://christianexodus.org/

http://freestateproject.org/


Something tells me these groups will not be wiling/able to co-exist.

Vote in the poll and tell why you chose who you did.

At first glance, I don't see the two groups clashing much.

I thought Christian Exodus was in South Carolina.

At first glance, I don't see the two groups clashing much.

Well, you have one group looking for a theocracy and the other basically looking for anarchy. One wants total legal control of your life according to their values, and the other would rather you leave them alone and they'll leave you alone.

Seems like they conflict to me.

I thought Christian Exodus was in South Carolina.

:p damn it. The article I read recently was factually inaccurate and I didn't verify.

So, apparently, meh, alternate reality I guess.

Well, you have one group looking for a theocracy and the other basically looking for anarchy.
That's not what I get from the two websites.

Both groups seem to want:

total legal control of your life according to their values
Although the Christian Exodus group want severe laws regarding some aspects of life (that, IMO, shouldn't be restricted in any way), they're rather libertarian on a number of issues. The Free State Project certainly don't want to live in anarchy, they are more minarchist than anything else.

Most of the time, they seem to agree; they want the US federal government to back off.

Well, you have one group looking for a theocracy and the other basically looking for anarchy. One wants total legal control of your life according to their values, and the other would rather you leave them alone and they'll leave you alone.

Seems like they conflict to me.

You do NOT mix up Libertarians and Anarchists!:mad:

You do NOT mix up Libertarians and Anarchists!:mad:

I do when I have a fever. :$

I do when I have a fever. :$
*Reveals he is royalty. Cures Smukee of fever* Go forth now loyal vassal, and be healed.:p

Libertarianism FTW! :D

Either is better than the bunch of liberal Reds doing their best to destroy everything that's good about America that currently resides in that state.

Either is better than the bunch of liberal Reds doing their best to destroy everything that's good about America that currently resides in that state.

*rants about how modern liberals don't deserve to be called that and talks about what the word liberal really means and how it should be applied to modern day Libertarians.*:soap:

True, but unfortunately, words derive the greater amount of their meaning according to their use in modern context. Apropos or not, "liberal" now refers to the dominant political ideology of the Democrat/Socialist party, hence the necessity of the creation of the label "libertarian" to separate the two.
It's a strange fact of etymology that, in the present day, if the Liberals were truly liberal, they wouldn't be Liberals but Libertarians.

True, but unfortunately, words derive the greater amount of their meaning according to their use in modern context. Apropos or not, "liberal" now refers to the dominant political ideology of the Democrat/Socialist party, hence the necessity of the creation of the label "libertarian" to separate the two.
It's a strange fact of etymology that, in the present day, if the Liberals were truly liberal, they wouldn't be Liberals but Libertarians.
*Cries at modern state of things*

First they've hijacked our government, now the commies have taken our definitions.
Is there now limit to how far they'll stoop?

First they've hijacked our government, now the commies have taken our definitions.
Is there now limit to how far they'll stoop?

Commies? I wouldn't call them that. I'd call them somewhat collectivist, and statist, but commies? no. I reserve that for 'comrade' Stalin and his ilk.:D

I often refer to all Marxists as "Commies" and "Reds." Again, perhaps not technically correct etymologically speaking, but it's better than dignifying their Socialist views with the word "liberal"

...Sancta?

...Sancta?

He gives you great gifts and comes down your chimney at night! Just don't ask him to wear red.:D Friendly poke, just in case of misinterpretation

...Sancta?

from the Latin 1st declension adjective sanctus -a -um, meaning "holy," here referring to the city of Nicea, at which the Council of Nicea formulated the Nicean Creed.

from the Latin 1st declension adjective sanctus -a -um, meaning "holy," here referring to the city of Nicea, at which the Council of Nicea formulated the Nicean Creed.

*sniff* It's so nice to find another history buff on here. Welcome to NSG. *Gets all teary eyed*

from the Latin 1st declension adjective sanctus -a -um, meaning "holy," here referring to the city of Nicea, at which the Council of Nicea formulated the Nicean Creed.

Ah, so you're not the Sancta. Continue with your existence.

The libertarians would seem to be more in tune with the general New Hampshire population -- socially liberal, fiscally more conservative than the rest of New England, and pro-gun ownership.

The libertarians would seem to be more in tune with the general New Hampshire population -- socially liberal, fiscally more conservative than the rest of New England, and pro-gun ownership.

Being more conservative than the rest of New England is roughly analogous to being the best ice dancer in Afghanistan.

Being more conservative than the rest of New England is roughly analogous to being the best ice dancer in Afghanistan.

:confused:

I say we make them fight each other in a cage death-match.

(The humour stemming from the relative lack of similar objects of comparison. The best ice dancer in Afghanistan is not a very great distinction, because of the large shortage of ice dancers in Afghanistan, probably stemming from the large shortage of ice in Afghanistan. Similarly, being more conservative than the rest of New England isn't all that difficult to achieve, due to the utter lack of proper conservative thinking, or thinking of any sort, in most of New England.)

(The humour stemming from the relative lack of similar objects of comparison. The best ice dancer in Afghanistan is not a very great distinction, because of the large shortage of ice dancers in Afghanistan, probably stemming from the large shortage of ice in Afghanistan. Similarly, being more conservative than the rest of New England isn't all that difficult to achieve, due to the utter lack of proper conservative thinking, or thinking of any sort, in most of New England.)

I love oxymoron-based humor.

Libertarians will have more luck in NH than Christian fundies will have in SC.

That type of overbearing Christianity all too often drives young members into differing belief structures. Libertarianism has no such issue.

Being more conservative than the rest of New England is roughly analogous to being the best ice dancer in Afghanistan.
To be fair, NH is as socially liberal as the rest of New England. It is only in fiscal issues, and even then, not notably.

Not to mention the concept of the New England Republican (which may have met their death with the '06 elections)

(The humour stemming from the relative lack of similar objects of comparison. The best ice dancer in Afghanistan is not a very great distinction, because of the large shortage of ice dancers in Afghanistan, probably stemming from the large shortage of ice in Afghanistan. Similarly, being more conservative than the rest of New England isn't all that difficult to achieve, due to the utter lack of proper conservative thinking, or thinking of any sort, in most of New England.)

:rolleyes:


This new eye-roll sucks. It doesn't express half the contempt of the previous one.

You do NOT mix up Libertarians and Anarchists!:mad:
Why not? They advocate the same thing in essence.

Why was South Carolina chosen?

9. It has mountains.
:confused:


Under no circumstances is government to steal from some citizens to provide for other citizens. Such action is nothing short of using the power of government to steal what does not belong to you, and it is wholly unbiblical.
Fecal matter of a male bovine individual

Why not? They advocate the same thing in essence.

Libertarians- Small government.

Anarchists- No government.

There's a difference between having enough water to drink (Libertarians) and not having any water at all (Anarchists. Well, in my opinion at least)

:confused:


My guess is that it stems from this speech by John Winthrop (ironically, a New Englander)

For we must consider that we shall be as a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us. So that if we shall deal falsely with our God in this work we have undertaken… we shall be made a story and a by-word throughout the world. We shall open the mouths of enemies to speak evil of the ways of God… We shall shame the faces of many of God's worthy servants, and cause their prayers to be turned into curses upon us til we be consumed out of the good land whither we are a-going.

Since this speech, it has been common among American religious groups to seek a "city on the hill" to equate with being a holy group