Senate Discussion and Noticeboard

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Bow Chicka Bow Wow Bill


What type of name is that??? HAHA!

Haha, you guessed it.

You can count on me to do everything in my power to prevent its passage.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Bow Chicka Bow Wow Bill


What type of name is that??? HAHA!

Haha, you guessed it.

My friend, that bill is a bill for freedom.

Yea if you want freedom to be taken advantage off and exploited. Our job is to protect people not create legislative anarchy under the guise of freedom.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Bow Chicka Bow Wow Bill


What type of name is that??? HAHA!

Haha, you guessed it.

My friend, that bill is a bill for freedom.

Yea if you want freedom to be taken advantage off and exploited. Our job is to protect people not create legislative anarchy under the guise of freedom.

Allowing teenagers to buy porn doesn't take advantage of them or exploit them or harm them in any way.

What about the people in the porn? As for the viewers we shouldn't be a party to encouraging the destruction of brain tissue which could better be appropriated to other things like there studies or something. Why do teens need to have porn? Is the the freedom of teenagers to effectively and efficiently masturbate now guarrenteed in the consitution?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Bow Chicka Bow Wow Bill


What type of name is that??? HAHA!

Haha, you guessed it.

My friend, that bill is a bill for freedom.

Yea if you want freedom to be taken advantage off and exploited. Our job is to protect people not create legislative anarchy under the guise of freedom.

Allowing teenagers to buy porn doesn't take advantage of them or exploit them or harm them in any way.

What about the people in the porn? As for the viewers we shouldn't be a party to encouraging the destruction of brain tissue which could better be appropriated to other things like there studies or something. Why do teens need to have porn? Is the the freedom of teenagers to effectively and efficiently masturbate now guarrenteed in the consitution?

Oh lord..

Bow Chicka Bow Wow Bill


What type of name is that??? HAHA!

Haha, you guessed it.

My friend, that bill is a bill for freedom.

Yea if you want freedom to be taken advantage off and exploited. Our job is to protect people not create legislative anarchy under the guise of freedom.

Allowing teenagers to buy porn doesn't take advantage of them or exploit them or harm them in any way.

Though, it could harm their parents.
I say, make it legal for them to view porn, just illegal to buy it. If their parents are fine with it, they can buy it for them. They are their guardians, they should have some rights.

How on earth could it do that?

Not a high percentage of parents want their kids watching porn. That's why it probably became illegal in the first place. Parents complaining.

Then they'll have to get over it, that's just the way the world works. They can still take it away if they want to. It's not like we're making consumption of pornography compulsory.

Teens have enough distractions, the last thing we need to do is undermine parents abililty to control these savages.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Unless someone can prove harm done by allowing this, I'd advise you all to move on. No reason to come across as backward reactionaries unless you absolutely must.

Oh so now its modern and the in thing to let our children view out an out trash just so you can have your porn?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

NC Yank, have you been on the internet recently? Teenagers looking at porn is as easy as a google image search. You don't even have to click the links (though those tiny thumbnails are hardly stimulating).

I haven't been online since 2007. The posted information you get comes telepathically from my mind. I think we should require computer manufacturers to place parental controls in computers like Televisions do.

Unless someone can prove harm done by allowing this, I'd advise you all to move on. No reason to come across as backward reactionaries unless you absolutely must.

Oh so now its modern and the in thing to let our children view out an out trash just so you can have your porn?

First of all, I'm almost 19.

Secondly, the "trash" comment is entirely subjective.

Thirdly, you still haven't proved that it's harmful.

Its trash.

Its harmful because I beleive it to be trash.

Sorry, I keep forgetting you don't have any morals or standards at all.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You could always ban advertising of it while making it legal, you know. It isn't as though children will be buying or viewing the stuff anyway, and it's not like you can stop the teenagers.

I have devoted my teenage years to stopping other teenagers from stupidity with moderate success levels. I now how to stop teenagers, I have made it my passion. I have created lots of enemies doing this and pissed a lot of people off, but its the only thing that I have done where I feel good about it as an achievement. First off Gov't has to get on the side of the parents and not teenagers, that is non-negotiable.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You could always ban advertising of it while making it legal, you know. It isn't as though children will be buying or viewing the stuff anyway, and it's not like you can stop the teenagers.

I have devoted my teenage years to stopping other teenagers from stupidity with moderate success levels. I now how to stop teenagers, I have made it my passion. I have created lots of enemies doing this and pissed a lot of people off, but its the only thing that I have done where I feel good about it as an achievement. First off Gov't has to get on the side of the parents and not teenagers, that is non-negotiable.

There is no harm in such a thing. We're not encouraging teenage drug use. I don't know what Pat Robertson-led dystopia you fly off to at night, but this is Atlasia, not some sort of fundamentalist society.

I actually could care less about Pat Robertson as I really am rather secular and haven't read more then a few pages of the bible. Haven't been to church except once for a funeral.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

To start off in my effort to prove how damaging pornography is, I found this article very insightful.

http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/1996/07/13/is-pornography-harmless/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Wait until the debate thread officially opens, and I'll be happy to deal with your nonsense from the bible scholar you cited.

What does that have to do with anything? He cited specific examples as proof. You can't deny what the "experts" he quoted said, one of whom is a libertarian who believes that Porn should be an exception to the philosphy of anarchy that is Libertarianism. You also kind deny the statistics from Australia and Japan.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Wait until the debate thread officially opens, and I'll be happy to deal with your nonsense from the bible scholar you cited.

What does that have to do with anything? He cited specific examples as proof. You can't deny what the "experts" he quoted said, one of whom is a libertarian who believes that Porn should be an exception to the philosphy of anarchy that is Libertarianism. You also kind deny the statistics from Australia and Japan.

     So since you have found one Libertarian saying that porn should be outlawed, you have disproven any notion that violent porn should be legal, eh? I should point out that he isn't much of a libertarian if he doesn't think the individual can take responsibility for his own actions.

Your right he is not much of a Libertarian cause he still has a brain unlike most of those nuts yourself included.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You could always ban advertising of it while making it legal, you know. It isn't as though children will be buying or viewing the stuff anyway, and it's not like you can stop the teenagers.

I have devoted my teenage years to stopping other teenagers from stupidity with moderate success levels. I now how to stop teenagers, I have made it my passion. I have created lots of enemies doing this and pissed a lot of people off, but its the only thing that I have done where I feel good about it as an achievement. First off Gov't has to get on the side of the parents and not teenagers, that is non-negotiable.

That's insane. Look, I don't like pornography either, but there are certain things that you can't legislate against and expect any success. Legislating against it presumably just increases the whole forbidden fruits aspect of its appeal. And, as I wrote earlier, it isn't as though children (defining "child", wrongly, as pre-puberty) will be buying it anyway.

I am not the one doing the legislating here, my friend. This is Marokai's bill to expand access to pornography, its not as if I introduce a bill to ban it entirely. I don't have this lack of faith in prohibtion style laws. If committed any law can be enforced.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You could always ban advertising of it while making it legal, you know. It isn't as though children will be buying or viewing the stuff anyway, and it's not like you can stop the teenagers.

I have devoted my teenage years to stopping other teenagers from stupidity with moderate success levels. I now how to stop teenagers, I have made it my passion. I have created lots of enemies doing this and pissed a lot of people off, but its the only thing that I have done where I feel good about it as an achievement. First off Gov't has to get on the side of the parents and not teenagers, that is non-negotiable.

That's insane. Look, I don't like pornography either, but there are certain things that you can't legislate against and expect any success. Legislating against it presumably just increases the whole forbidden fruits aspect of its appeal. And, as I wrote earlier, it isn't as though children (defining "child", wrongly, as pre-puberty) will be buying it anyway.

I am not the one doing the legislating here, my friend. This is Marokai's bill to expand access to pornography, its not as if I introduce a bill to ban it entirely. I don't have this lack of faith in prohibtion style laws. If committed any law can be enforced.

     What if the law backfires, as happened with Prohibition?

Prohibition backfired cause the public and gov't were not committed to enforcement. I do oppose the re-prohibtion of alcohol though.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Prohibition backfired cause the public and gov't were not committed to enforcement. I do oppose the re-prohibtion of alcohol though.

I repeat my question. Why do you hate freedom? Let people decide for themselves what they want to buy, or what they want to look at.....or who they want to have sex with and marry.

Stop the nanny state.

Because I hate people. I don't trust them, and I don't like them. So they need to be controlled and kept in there place by the rigid social structure, cause god forbid they should be a nuisance to my goals.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

So, you support an authoritarian regime?

I used to especially the Monarchic form, but not anymore. I have come to "accept" Democracy and the political freedoms that come with it. The social structure is still a necessity what I basically want is a more inclusive, less racist/sexist 1950's culture.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

So, you support an authoritarian regime?

I used to especially the Monarchic form, but not anymore. I have come to "accept" Democracy and the political freedoms that come with it. The social structure is still a necessity what I basically want is a more inclusive, less racist/sexist 1950's culture.

So you want the 1950's without everything that made the 1950's the 1950's. Okay.

You define the 1950's by racism, sexism, etc.

I define it by conformity, acceptance of institutions and respect for culture, society and country.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

So, you support an authoritarian regime?

I used to especially the Monarchic form, but not anymore. I have come to "accept" Democracy and the political freedoms that come with it. The social structure is still a necessity what I basically want is a more inclusive, less racist/sexist 1950's culture.

Well luckily we have a sensible majority in the Senate that will reject attempts to take us back to the Middle Ages.

No I wouldn't go that far back. The farthest back I would go in such of inspiration for a better moral, civil and societal structure is the Victorian Era. If I could have the Eisenhower era of society with todays technology, equality and economic complexity I would be happy.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

So, you support an authoritarian regime?

I used to especially the Monarchic form, but not anymore. I have come to "accept" Democracy and the political freedoms that come with it. The social structure is still a necessity what I basically want is a more inclusive, less racist/sexist 1950's culture.

Basically you want a return to the Duplessis-era Quebec or Vichy France.

Not Vichy, and I am not familiar with Quebec to say either way. What I will say is there was once a time when I had an affinity for the Consitutional type Monachy of Louis-Phillipe from 1830-1848.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

So, you support an authoritarian regime?

I used to especially the Monarchic form, but not anymore. I have come to "accept" Democracy and the political freedoms that come with it. The social structure is still a necessity what I basically want is a more inclusive, less racist/sexist 1950's culture.

Basically you want a return to the Duplessis-era Quebec or Vichy France.

Not Vichy, and I am not familiar with Quebec to say either way. What I will say is there was once a time when I had an affinity for the Consitutional type Monachy of Louis-Phillipe from 1830-1848.

Your rhetoric is extremely close to travail, famille, patrie.

And what Xahar said.

Notice the key word is "I had" and not the present tense "I have".

I never thought of Vichy as Orleanist, primarily cause I thought of them as facists but I guess they could both come together in one gov't. This discussion is however more appropriate for the History board and not fanasty elections.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

French fascism was particularly French, and not a German import. Action Française and the like supported (and still support) the Orléanist monarchy. I don't believe there have been any legitimists in the last century.

Why not have a historical discussion here? It raises the quality of the board.

Well there are still a small fragrement of the already small group that is French Monarchists that adhere to the Carlists of Spain as the Legitimate heirs to the non-existant throne. Don't know of any be name though. I never really became familiar with French Facism I guess and always assumed it was just brought in by the Germans during Vichy with only small involvement by the Monarchists in that.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Ladies and gentlemen, a message from your PPT... The Bow Chicka Bow Wow bill has passed

God forgive them, they know not what they did.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Ladies and gentlemen, a message from your PPT... The Bow Chicka Bow Wow bill has passed

God forgive them, they know not what they did.

It's a great victory for freedom, my friend.

and one more defeat for a culture that isn't a septic tank.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Ladies and gentlemen, a message from your PPT... The Bow Chicka Bow Wow bill has passed

God forgive them, they know not what they did.

It's a great victory for freedom, my friend.

and one more defeat for a culture that isn't a septic tank.

Three is a charm
Two is not the same
I don’t see the harm
So are you game?

Lets’ make a team
Make ‘em say my name
Lovin’ the extreme
Now are you game?

Are – you in
Livin’ in sin is the new thing (yeah!)

Exactly the culture I have been fighting for almost a decade. Being bad isn't cool and sin isn't fun.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

That sure explains a lot.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

RPP members lack the testicular mas necessary to stand up to Fluffy. Yankee basically admitted he wouldn't be doing things differently from DWTL, only changing the public face and image. If Duke couldn't, how could an asylum patient?

Furthermore, most of their members have no backbone and are just flat out power hungry. If PiT were a real libertarian, he'd be supporting the small government party, not the theocratic populists. Their whole facade is a farce and attention needs to be paid to it. They are not only bigots, but hypocrites and liars.

It would be quite humorous to see Fluffy lose after all but moving into a Senate office months before the election.

Just complete Bullsh**t. Our problem is that we choose not to align ourselves ideologically at the beginning because it would have been a foolish move and ensured the ultimate destruction of our main objective. When we had a left vs right reallignment and under your advise to "become a force against the left" was when our collapse began because the Libertarians like Giovanni and Vepres and others didn't like being in a "Conservative" party. Now all the sudden you have become the champion of the disenchanted Libertarians. You pushed for a more ideologically motivated name, you didn't have a problem when we tossed out our old platform which was much more Libertarian then our current one, you actually supported us doing that and encouraged and supported the idea of PiT running on such a platform. Now you think he is being intellectually dishonest. Its just so neat that it almost seems as if you were preparing the RPP for its destruction at your hands. You were either lying then or you are lying now, so which is it. Is the current Hamilton all a fascade or was the previous one back in October. Will the real Hamilton, "COME ON DOWN" to borrow a phrase. Maybe PiT is sick of being set up for failure by you. Maybe he has decided to make a decision based on whats best for him personally. There is much more to this game then ideology. Personallity plays a big role. And the right connections and friends can lead you to achieve great things.

You want to talk about hypocrisy lets talk. Why is it okay for Mint to deviate from libertarian orthodoxy on some things but its not when our libertarian people do, even if its ever so slight a deviation? When is it that deviation is no longer in the name of pragmatism and becomes deviation in the name of selling out ones beliefs and what grounds do have the authority to judge so? Why is that no one in your party has ever deviated from Libertarian orthodoxy for the sake of selling out ones beleifs and no one in ourparty ever deviated for the sake of pragamitism? The double standard here is both striking and very convenient for you. You can't be both ideological and pragmatic at the same time. If you are then it is being motivated for political expediency and not for intellectuall honesty. Care to explain this one?

Its also ironic that you call us a farce and fascade. I do know a few things and I know that usually whenever a false accusation is being spread around it is to cover up for the fact that the person who is doing the Bullsh**t spreading is doing the very thing he is accusing the other person of doing. There is no fascade, I have been nothing but open and honest about what is happening. Even your precious leaked posts from the Private Forum dealing with the DA should have came to no surprise to the DA as I warned them ahead of time that such negative feelings had been growing from within for quite some time. All you did was put some faces to some actual remarks. Maybe it is you who should look inward and question whether it isn't really you who has the "issues with honesty".

I have changed many things from the way DWTL was doing things and that his why he took advantage of my brief absence to go behind my back and contact people in a way very similar to way a certain person pursured a certain strategy just prior to the last Presidential elections, and you learned the hard way that I wont tollerate such bullsh**t. It is fortunate for DWTL that his campaign collapsed on its own otherwise I would have had to take more aggressive action upon my return.

One thing that has changed is that there have been no PM's by me or approved by me that tell someone how to vote. Appearently DWTL may have done so while I was gone but I am not going to spend my life micro-managing the actions of the people in my party. Its okay if someone said " Hey buddy can you please vote for me" or "Please second pref me" because it lets the person voting make the final decision. What is not acceptable is this:
1. DWTL
2. Duke
etc

I would like to know which DWTL used in his communications.

I would like to know some other lingering questions from your mind boggling post. How is someone like myself be a secularist yet at the same time be theocratic? Care to explain? My we are in the business of changing the facts to support your arguement. You would be the expert at such dishonest behavior so I am not surprised.


Your liberal use of the word populist to describe both me and my party is getting annoying. I distain populism for its knee-jerk decision making and refusal to look at certain facts before jumping in. I have reasons for supporting the positions that I have and few if any are based concretely on any ideology. In that sense I am pragmatic. Like your hero, TR, I am very hard to label, you of all people should be able to undersand that.

I wonder how I am a bigot? I knew your were Mexican from almost day one. That didn't stop me from making the worst decision this past year to recruit you. I never judge anyone prematurely. You should also be able to know that fact. It took me three months to learn you were an a**hole and took the highly Liberal Marokai Blue only one. So that makes me less judgemental then someone who knows a lot about being judged and still felt no quelms about judging you.