Join the new world

Quote:
- What do I know about you personally? Well I do know you rage quit from the Lib Party, Why? Well because you lost the last election, how sad. Now going onto your points

Regrettably, when information passes from person to person, each putting their own spin on it, the truth suffers. I didn't "rage quit" from the Libertarian Party. I didn't even quit the Libertarian Party due to the last Congressional Election. That was a problem with the FEC not supervising their listed FEC Blockers and Pfeiffer/Henry Arundel deciding to snipe in Inwegen (one of those listed FEC Blockers) at the last moment because Pfeiffer is Pfeiffer. I don't fault the Libertarian Party for that. I didn't even make a stink about it.

I talked with CRoy and Emerick privately about it on IRC (CRoy before I left the party and Emerick after I left the party) and I left a polite message in #USLP on why I was leaving. In all cases, where I addressed the issue of leaving the party, I made it clear that I was leaving due to my desire to join a Party with a consistent ideology. That is why I joined the SFP. Because I agreed with most of their platform. If the individals in the Libertarian Party were ideologically Libertarian, then they would actually have those same beliefs, but this isn't RL, it is a game, so I couldn't expect that to happen. I could make the choice to move elsewhere though -- which is what I did.

This was after the PotUS Primary, where I had a BIG problem with the ethics of endorsing the PotUS Candidate before we even had the PotUS Primary -- and leaving that Candidate in the endorsement slot all through the actual Primary. But yet even that was only a small part of my leaving.

As I mentioned in #USLP, I left because I wanted to join a party with a consistent ideology, not a social club. Having a consistent ideology in a party makes it more possible to insert influence in your areas of belief rather than having a bunch of individuals in the party following their own direction. In that same message, while conversing with Marxus, I said I would be glad to help out behind the scenes if you all needed any help, but I wanted to stick with the SFP.

When I was talking with Emerick on IRC, he asked if I wouldn't mind helping with the Platform. I said I would but I warned him that being a RL Libertarian, I was "philsophically rigid" and that I felt that rules that apply to newfags should also apply to oldfags. That just because somebody is an "Elite", doesn't mean that a different standard should apply. That kind of behavior does not encourage new player retention. The last thing a new player wants to hear, as my mentee was told when he was in the Forums, is that "Inwegen is Inwegen" and "Publius is Publius". But, I guess when somebody can't come up with a good reason for a double standard, they resort to tautologies.



Now for the other points.

Quote:
-Some of your damn points have stupid pictures, like really? A picture may have a 1000 words, but with no context it means nothing!

Stupid Pictures: I use pictures to break up the text. As it has been said, nobody likes to read a bunch of text mashed together. For those who know what the pictures represent, they know that the pictures have a direct significance with the topics expressed below them. Just because one doesn't understand the significance, doesn't mean there isn't a significance. I would recommend that people ask themselves what the pictures are, and what they represent, before they decide to call them stupid. They call this type of fallacy "Ad Hominem".



Quote:
-National Primary Systems, ok well here this goes. One we need it to prevent PTOs. But you say better communication will prevent that. WRONG! First off if a Serbian PTO threat came into this country and speak English well, they would sneak into this nice "communication" and win, therefore leading to the future PTO of America, good job!

National Primary Systems: If one believes that a specific individual running for Congress is a PTO threat, they should run their campaign along those lines and tell the voters why that candidate is a PTO threat. Let the voters make the decision as the game mechanics intend. The powers that be shouldn't use the possibility of a PTO threat to take yet more of the decision-making out of the hands of the individual player.



Quote:
-Budget Reporting, since when was the money in the government's hands public? Seriously! The money in the CBO's hands turns into private cash distributed properly with the Economic Committee within congress. Also bar the corrupted people? With if those so called corrupted people you want to bar is all of the JCS? You going to destroy our army now also?

Budget Reporting: The logic expressed regarding "[t]he money in the CBO's hands turns into private cash" is just like the logic of the thief who believes that stolen property is his once it enters his possession. Congress has to remember where the funds originally came from. They also have to remember that people go through various means to avoid paying into the budget through taxation. I believe that if the individual player were more knowledgable as to how the funds were used, and that they were used effectively, that players would be less likely to evade taxes.



Quote:
-Foreign and Military Policy, Congress has no dealings in those, why place that in your campaign?
-Anti-Imperialism , deal with it. And like I say again, this issue doesn't involve congress.
-National Guard, not important to congress.

Foreign and Military Policy, Anti-Imperialism and the National Guar😛 For the term that I was in Congress, I voted regularly regarding MPPs and the level of Military funding in the budget. While the President directs Military Policy, Foreign and Military Policy -- which include Anti-Imperialism and the National Guard -- are definitely issues that Congress discusses. Based on those discussions, and the direction they would like to see those issues move in, Congress provides funding.



Quote:
-International Solidarity, like I said a few times already, not an issue congress deals with.

International Solidarity: When I was in Congress, we voted on the PANAM Alliance. I was one of the ones who voted for it. Alliances like PANAM, expanded to smaller nations, with the purpose of protecting their sovereignty are a possibility. And Congress does have the ability to work on economic, social, and political problems that occur in the New World if they decide to commit the funds to do so.