The Edmund Burke Society

[Ameriplan]

I would like to announce the creation of a new PAC/ think tank.

We support paleoconservative ideology. Here are some of our positions.

War
While a strong national defense is of utmost importance, war should only be an absolute emergency tool. The current war in Iraq and Afghanistan should be ended immediately and we need to withdraw from NATO.

United Nations
We need to withdraw from the United Nations imminently. The body is unnecessary and is almost certainly anti-Atlasian. We do not need to be a member of a union that is dedicated to our destruction.

Economy
Free market principles are to be followed and the lowest possible government interference is to be desired. Socialistic principles are of course resistors to economic growth and domestic free trade inspires bull markets.

The PAC endorses the Popular Party (Populares) and the Presbyterian Party.

[Oakvale]

Jesus, think tanks are springing up like crazy.

[Bacon King]

You want to withdraw from NATO and the UN but you're cool with the GTO or what?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

anti-Atlasian

Mmmm... I smell maccarthism.

[Јas]

What war in Iraq?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

What war in Iraq?

Didn't John Ford win that like five years ago or something?

[Ameriplan]

You want to withdraw from NATO and the UN but you're cool with the GTO or what?

We need to end all entangling alliances.

[Ameriplan]

Attention all freedom lovers:

The EBS is releasing its first official proclamation:

The Ludlow Amendment needs to be defeated.
We will work hand and hand with the Defense Caucus to oppose this amendment.
It will work against the security of America by delaying any action against opposing factions.

For the sake of America, defeat this amendment!

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Attention all freedom lovers:

The EBS is releasing its first official proclamation:

The Ludlow Amendment needs to be defeated.
We will work hand and hand with the Defense Caucus to oppose this amendment.
It will work against the security of America by delaying any action against opposing factions.

For the sake of America, defeat this amendment!

So your loyalty is to a foreign nation?

'Freedom lovers' don't love aggressive war.

[Ameriplan]

Attention all freedom lovers:

The EBS is releasing its first official proclamation:

The Ludlow Amendment needs to be defeated.
We will work hand and hand with the Defense Caucus to oppose this amendment.
It will work against the security of America by delaying any action against opposing factions.

For the sake of America, defeat this amendment!

So your loyalty is to a foreign nation?

'Freedom lovers' don't love aggressive war.

...

I don't think you understand your own amendment. You're saying that a people that are corruptible by the media are responsible for deciding our foreign policy. I'm not buying it.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Attention all freedom lovers:

The EBS is releasing its first official proclamation:

The Ludlow Amendment needs to be defeated.
We will work hand and hand with the Defense Caucus to oppose this amendment.
It will work against the security of America by delaying any action against opposing factions.

For the sake of America, defeat this amendment!

So your loyalty is to a foreign nation?

'Freedom lovers' don't love aggressive war.

...

I don't think you understand your own amendment. You're saying that a people that are corruptible by the media are responsible for deciding our foreign policy. I'm not buying it.

No, I understand my amendment quite well. It merely adds an additional check upon the power of the regime to launch a long-term war of aggression. A true paleoconservative would be supporting it.

[Ameriplan]

Attention all freedom lovers:

The EBS is releasing its first official proclamation:

The Ludlow Amendment needs to be defeated.
We will work hand and hand with the Defense Caucus to oppose this amendment.
It will work against the security of America by delaying any action against opposing factions.

For the sake of America, defeat this amendment!

So your loyalty is to a foreign nation?

'Freedom lovers' don't love aggressive war.

...

I don't think you understand your own amendment. You're saying that a people that are corruptible by the media are responsible for deciding our foreign policy. I'm not buying it.

No, I understand my amendment quite well. It merely adds an additional check upon the power of the regime to launch a long-term war of aggression. A true paleoconservative would be supporting it.

Normally, yes, but in this case the target is not militarism but our own defense.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Attention all freedom lovers:

The EBS is releasing its first official proclamation:

The Ludlow Amendment needs to be defeated.
We will work hand and hand with the Defense Caucus to oppose this amendment.
It will work against the security of America by delaying any action against opposing factions.

For the sake of America, defeat this amendment!

So your loyalty is to a foreign nation?

'Freedom lovers' don't love aggressive war.

...

I don't think you understand your own amendment. You're saying that a people that are corruptible by the media are responsible for deciding our foreign policy. I'm not buying it.

No, I understand my amendment quite well. It merely adds an additional check upon the power of the regime to launch a long-term war of aggression. A true paleoconservative would be supporting it.

Normally, yes, but in this case the target is not militarism but our own defense.

No, it clearly isn't, considering the amendment has no effect on wars of defense.

It solely impacts the ability of the regime to start foreign wars of aggression, which paleoconservatives oppose.

[Ameriplan]

Attention all freedom lovers:

The EBS is releasing its first official proclamation:

The Ludlow Amendment needs to be defeated.
We will work hand and hand with the Defense Caucus to oppose this amendment.
It will work against the security of America by delaying any action against opposing factions.

For the sake of America, defeat this amendment!

So your loyalty is to a foreign nation?

'Freedom lovers' don't love aggressive war.

...

I don't think you understand your own amendment. You're saying that a people that are corruptible by the media are responsible for deciding our foreign policy. I'm not buying it.

No, I understand my amendment quite well. It merely adds an additional check upon the power of the regime to launch a long-term war of aggression. A true paleoconservative would be supporting it.

Normally, yes, but in this case the target is not militarism but our own defense.

No, it clearly isn't, considering the amendment has no effect on wars of defense.

It solely impacts the ability of the regime to start foreign wars of aggression, which paleoconservatives oppose.

My main concern is that, while that may be true, people in the future will use it in a time of crisis. And who defines "War of Aggression" anyway?

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Attention all freedom lovers:

The EBS is releasing its first official proclamation:

The Ludlow Amendment needs to be defeated.
We will work hand and hand with the Defense Caucus to oppose this amendment.
It will work against the security of America by delaying any action against opposing factions.

For the sake of America, defeat this amendment!

So your loyalty is to a foreign nation?

'Freedom lovers' don't love aggressive war.

...

I don't think you understand your own amendment. You're saying that a people that are corruptible by the media are responsible for deciding our foreign policy. I'm not buying it.

No, I understand my amendment quite well. It merely adds an additional check upon the power of the regime to launch a long-term war of aggression. A true paleoconservative would be supporting it.

Normally, yes, but in this case the target is not militarism but our own defense.

No, it clearly isn't, considering the amendment has no effect on wars of defense.

It solely impacts the ability of the regime to start foreign wars of aggression, which paleoconservatives oppose.

My main concern is that, while that may be true, people in the future will use it in a time of crisis. And who defines "War of Aggression" anyway?

A war against a country that has not threatened the security of Atlasia is an aggressive war.

[Ameriplan]

Attention all freedom lovers:

The EBS is releasing its first official proclamation:

The Ludlow Amendment needs to be defeated.
We will work hand and hand with the Defense Caucus to oppose this amendment.
It will work against the security of America by delaying any action against opposing factions.

For the sake of America, defeat this amendment!

So your loyalty is to a foreign nation?

'Freedom lovers' don't love aggressive war.

...

I don't think you understand your own amendment. You're saying that a people that are corruptible by the media are responsible for deciding our foreign policy. I'm not buying it.

No, I understand my amendment quite well. It merely adds an additional check upon the power of the regime to launch a long-term war of aggression. A true paleoconservative would be supporting it.

Normally, yes, but in this case the target is not militarism but our own defense.

No, it clearly isn't, considering the amendment has no effect on wars of defense.

It solely impacts the ability of the regime to start foreign wars of aggression, which paleoconservatives oppose.

My main concern is that, while that may be true, people in the future will use it in a time of crisis. And who defines "War of Aggression" anyway?

A war against a country that has not threatened the security of Atlasia is an aggressive war.

But it's not clearly defined. Change it to clearly define it and you have my support.

[Ameriplan]

Plus, you know, a leader could say, "This war is against someone who threatens us." Without any basis.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Attention all freedom lovers:

The EBS is releasing its first official proclamation:

The Ludlow Amendment needs to be defeated.
We will work hand and hand with the Defense Caucus to oppose this amendment.
It will work against the security of America by delaying any action against opposing factions.

For the sake of America, defeat this amendment!

So your loyalty is to a foreign nation?

'Freedom lovers' don't love aggressive war.

...

I don't think you understand your own amendment. You're saying that a people that are corruptible by the media are responsible for deciding our foreign policy. I'm not buying it.

No, I understand my amendment quite well. It merely adds an additional check upon the power of the regime to launch a long-term war of aggression. A true paleoconservative would be supporting it.

Normally, yes, but in this case the target is not militarism but our own defense.

No, it clearly isn't, considering the amendment has no effect on wars of defense.

It solely impacts the ability of the regime to start foreign wars of aggression, which paleoconservatives oppose.

My main concern is that, while that may be true, people in the future will use it in a time of crisis. And who defines "War of Aggression" anyway?

A war against a country that has not threatened the security of Atlasia is an aggressive war.

But it's not clearly defined. Change it to clearly define it and you have my support.

It is clearly defined. One kind of war is fought to defend our homes, lives, families, property, country. The other is fought for the benefit of foreign and corporate interests in line with an internationalist interventionist ideology.

[Ameriplan]

Attention all freedom lovers:

The EBS is releasing its first official proclamation:

The Ludlow Amendment needs to be defeated.
We will work hand and hand with the Defense Caucus to oppose this amendment.
It will work against the security of America by delaying any action against opposing factions.

For the sake of America, defeat this amendment!

So your loyalty is to a foreign nation?

'Freedom lovers' don't love aggressive war.

...

I don't think you understand your own amendment. You're saying that a people that are corruptible by the media are responsible for deciding our foreign policy. I'm not buying it.

No, I understand my amendment quite well. It merely adds an additional check upon the power of the regime to launch a long-term war of aggression. A true paleoconservative would be supporting it.

Normally, yes, but in this case the target is not militarism but our own defense.

No, it clearly isn't, considering the amendment has no effect on wars of defense.

It solely impacts the ability of the regime to start foreign wars of aggression, which paleoconservatives oppose.

My main concern is that, while that may be true, people in the future will use it in a time of crisis. And who defines "War of Aggression" anyway?

A war against a country that has not threatened the security of Atlasia is an aggressive war.

But it's not clearly defined. Change it to clearly define it and you have my support.

It is clearly defined. One kind of war is fought to defend our homes, lives, families, property, country. The other is fought for the benefit of foreign and corporate interests in line with an internationalist interventionist ideology.

See, no. That's all opinion and shouldn't be the basis of foreign policy.

[Ameriplan]

What exactly do the aforementioned principles have to do with Edmund Burke?

...

[Fritz]

Was the Iraq War a "war of aggression"?  G.W. Bush was directly asked this (slightly different wording), he said it was not.  Your amendment would not have stopped this war.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Was the Iraq War a "war of aggression"?  G.W. Bush was directly asked this (slightly different wording), he said it was not.  Your amendment would not have stopped this war.

Um yes, yes it would.

Except in the event of an invasion of the Republic of Atlasia or attack upon its citizens residing therein, the authority of the Senate to declare war shall remain effective for only sixty (60) days unless confirmed by a majority of all votes cast thereon in a nationwide referendum to be held from Friday 0001 AM EST through 11:59 PM Sunday starting the first Friday occurring at least 10 days after action by the Senate and not conflicting with any national holidays throughout the weekend voting period. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the Senate determines and certifies by majority vote that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of Atlasian Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces. The Senate, when it deems a national crisis to exist, may by concurrent resolution refer the question of war or peace to the citizens of the Regions, the question to be voted on being, 'Shall Atlasia declare war on ________?' The Senate may otherwise by law provide for the enforcement of this section.

[Ameriplan]

That doesn't make any sense. 60 Days after what? Or all they have is 60 Days?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Seeing Kyle and Libertas "arguing" against each other is something unbearable for a human being.

[Ameriplan]

Seeing Kyle and Libertas "arguing" against each other is something unbearable for a human being.

Look it's Antonio V, he's the very best, he's the rootinest, tootinest, cowboy in the wild, wild west!