Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

The Presidents: 1836-1936 - An Interactive US AAR

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Show only dev responses
Riccardo93 said:
Your system: steal for the rich, keep most of the money, and give trinkets of aid to the poor. Further, the poor become dependent on the government, creating a welfare state that will place a drain on the economy, and encourages mediocrity.
Click to expand...

It won't be stealing, it's like change in their pockets that their losing. The poor won't rely on the state. We are only giving them a bit of relief by lowering the tax.

Riccardo93 said:
My system: A constitutional system where individuals, businesses, and states aid the poor, in the ways that they see best, rather than have Washington dictate the system.
Click to expand...

Yes, an unreliable system were only the lucky get help.

Riccardo93 said:
I would also like to ask you, where is it in the Constitution that it says the government must provide for the people? I've never noticed it, and I doubt the Founder would have wanted to force one group of people to provide for the other ((except the slaves, but that's neither here nor there)).
Click to expand...

While it may not be written, is it our job to represent and fight for a better life for every American. I work for the people and fight for everyone, including the minority.
 
So... if I stole a small amount from a rich man, it's... legal? If I steal a small amount from a poor, it's... legal? You're dealing in moral relativity; I don't believe the government should tax one group at a higher percentage than the other two, that way, we ensure taxes stay low, because no-one would tax the poor at 90% ((while the rich have, on paper at least)).

And the government bureaucracy is so reliable. If government got out of my way, my businesses would be in China by now!

So... we should ignore the Constitution, and go with what our hearts tell us to do? Who needs that Bill of Rights anyway; it only weakens the government's ability to help the poor! It allows dangerous ideas to be spread! It prevents the government from being involved in people lives... for their own good! [/sarcasm]
 
Riccardo93 said:
Your system: steal for the rich, keep most of the money, and give trinkets of aid to the poor. Further, the poor become dependent on the government, creating a welfare state that will place a drain on the economy, and encourages mediocrity. Probably most of that money would go to wars of conquest, foreign conflicts, and other expansionistic policies.

My system: A constitutional system where individuals, businesses, and states aid the poor, in the ways that they see best, rather than have Washington dictate the system. It's more efficient, less corrupt (and what corruption does exist won't be in charge of the country), and overall a better way to aid people.

I would also like to ask you, where is it in the Constitution that it says the government must provide for the people? I've never noticed it, and I doubt the Founder would have wanted to force one group of people to provide for the other ((except the slaves, but that's neither here nor there)).
Click to expand...

So, in your mind, while the government is already busy securing the happiness of the wealthy - through entitlements to claim lands beyond their ability to sow, against the natural laws of property that say otherwise, robbing the producers in order to make the entitled landlords rich to the benefit ultimately of none as the nation crumbles around them - it should not concern itself at all with making some slight repayment to the factory workers and tenant farmers who created all that wealth?

So, in your mind, Mr.Jarvis, even though the Constitution says otherwise, you believe that people given titles by the government have an unlimited entitlement - a divine mandate perhaps? - to live off of the produce of others and control the produce of others, with no social contract involved whatsoever?

Because, the way I was raised, the impression I was under, was that when the government violated natural property, natural law, so that factories could be built - to the temporary detriment of the producers who would have otherwise been free smallholders, working the land themselves where the would-be-landlords were unwilling or unable due to their failure to compete in the area of actually producing wealth and maintaining the land - that it took upon itself a responsibility to make sure this social arrangement, not a natural arrangement, a social arrangement put in by force of law, would be carried out justly and for the benefit of all Americans.

You seem to confuse the entitlements that make the wealthiest wealthy with some aristocratic privilege that you would be more likely to find in one of the old powers of Europe, I'm afraid. And if you really want to play dumb or act like I speak nonsense, then you will reveal that you know nothing of what men like Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson stood for.

You should stop misusing the Constitution to represent your own beliefs, it is undignified, inaccurate, and ultimately you are shaming yourself with these continued outrageous gaffs.
 
Riccardo93 said:
So... if I stole a small amount from a rich man, it's... legal? If I steal a small amount from a poor, it's... legal? You're dealing in moral relativity; I don't believe the government should tax one group at a higher percentage than the other two, that way, we ensure taxes stay low, because no-one would tax the poor at 90% ((while the rich have, on paper at least)).

And the government bureaucracy is so reliable. If government got out of my way, my businesses would be in China by now!

So... we should ignore the Constitution, and go with what our hearts tell us to do? Who needs that Bill of Rights anyway; it only weakens the government's ability to help the poor! It allows dangerous ideas to be spread! It prevents the government from being involved in people lives... for their own good! [/sarcasm]
Click to expand...

I don't see how tax is stealing. I don't see how relying on the few to help the many is a solution. I don't see how sarcasim can help America! I, and it would seem, the American people, don't see how your policy's benefit America.
 
Rogov said:
So, in your mind, while the government is already busy securing the happiness of the wealthy - through entitlements to claim lands beyond their ability to sow, against the natural laws of property that say otherwise, robbing the producers in order to make the entitled landlords rich to the benefit ultimately of none as the nation crumbles around them - it should not concern itself at all with making some slight repayment to the factory workers and tenant farmers who created all that wealth?

So, in your mind, Mr.Jarvis, even though the Constitution says otherwise, you believe that people given titles by the government have an unlimited entitlement - a divine mandate perhaps? - to live off of the produce of others and control the produce of others, with no social contract involved whatsoever?

Because, the way I was raised, the impression I was under, was that when the government violated natural property, natural law, so that factories could be built - to the temporary detriment of the producers who would have otherwise been free smallholders, working the land themselves where the would-be-landlords were unwilling or unable due to their failure to compete in the area of actually producing wealth and maintaining the land - that it took upon itself a responsibility to make sure this social arrangement, not a natural arrangement, a social arrangement put in by force of law, would be carried out justly and for the benefit of all Americans.

You seem to confuse the entitlements that make the wealthiest wealthy with some aristocratic privilege that you would be more likely to find in one of the old powers of Europe, I'm afraid. And if you really want to play dumb or act like I speak nonsense, then you will reveal that you know nothing of what men like Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson stood for.

You should stop misusing the Constitution to represent your own beliefs, it is undignified, inaccurate, and ultimately you are shaming yourself with these continued outrageous gaffs.
Click to expand...

((This was the biggest load of crock I've ever had the displeasure to read. It was almost as nonsensical as the Communist Manifesto (ugh..). I had trouble understanding what it even getting at, especially the land-lord parts, could you explain it in a different way))

Mr. Bridgeworthy, could you explain that first part to me, a little... more clearly, I didn't quite catch the meaning.

I do not believe that the government has a divine mandate to steal from the rich to 'benefit' the poor. It's seems to me you would favour an enlightened despot, divinely sanctioned to rule, rather than a president, chosen by the people, the Electors, and the states to lead the Union.

I do not wish to treat the wealthy with privilege; I believe taxing them fairly, treating them equally under the law, and not infringing on their rights to a free market (which, of course, extends to all people).
 
12:3 for Callahan.

Okay, I think I might just ban unity parties since both times we've had one it's been a curb-stomp battle.
 
((I for one, welcome our new Communist/Imperialist overlords! Oxymoronic, isn't it?

And I agree, unity parties don't go well; and this one had less reason for forming than the Whig/Democrat did over SNP... not being a sore loser, just stating an opinion))

((Oh, and, this may still prove to early (but, sadly, I doubt it) Congratulations, Mr Callahan (may God have mercy on America :p)))
 
((I'm disturbed by the continual absence of a large part of this electorate...where are the Republicans?!)
 
The Unity ticket made sense since the Democrats and Federals had very similar policies at this time and are both in stark contrast to the radical anarcho-liberal policies the Republicans have decided to embrace.

Joseph Walker
 
((Actually, its the United Federate of American Socialists States... of Earth))

((But, yeah, the Republican's kinda left me out to dry... all alone... sadface))

Actually, Mr. Walker, I was arguing in favour of the Constitution, and God willing, I will continue to do so. I solidly favour liberal immigration, localized government, private enterprise, low taxes and tariffs, non-interventionism, and support for charity and limited government.
 
North Carolina is most sympathetic towards Republican stances, but we will most likely not resort to the force fo arms in the case of a Democratic-Federalist government. However, if Carolinian liberty and Carolinian prosperity is compromised, we will walk out of this Congress.
 
Devotist said:
North Carolina is most sympathetic towards Republican stances, but we will most likely not resort to the force fo arms in the case of a Democratic-Federalist government. However, if Carolinian liberty and Carolinian prosperity is compromised, we will walk out of this Congress.
Click to expand...

((bye, bye then. :p ))
 
Devotist said:
North Carolina is most sympathetic towards Republican stances, but we will most likely not resort to the force fo arms in the case of a Democratic-Federalist government. However, if Carolinian liberty and Carolinian prosperity is compromised, we will walk out of this Congress.
Click to expand...

So, the South continues to talk of succession, even in a separate party from their first. Is this not more of a reason to keep these slavery loving politicians out of Congress? I thought they were all liquidated during the first years of Reconstruction under Williams.
 
Seek75 said:
((...and the Milky Way...times 2...to the power of Marx.))
Click to expand...

((I like that))

I cannot agree with Mr. Brockman's statement, but he does have a right to talk about it; at this point, it is idle talk, and no-one will support it. However, 'liquidation' sounds a bit... much ((and very much Communistic... shame on you Williams if you liquidated them!))
 
King50000 said:
So, the South continues to talk of succession, even in a separate party from their first. Is this not more of a reason to keep these slavery loving politicians out of Congress? I thought they were all liquidated during the first years of Reconstruction under Williams.
Click to expand...

I believe Michael Jamous was Secretary of Reconstruction in my uncle's administration.
 
The men that created this nation were not afraid to advocate armed conflict to ensure their liberties, now this order-loving man urges us to silence ourselves! Shall we pander to authority in order to ensure safety? Every little piece of liberty we give up to men like you cannot be taken back, those who believe so and act in such a spirit deserve neither liberty nor safety. Shall you deprive us of arms? Of our lives? After all, you urge our liquidation, our removal from government Mr. Khur! A man of the people? Heh, you will be their flatterer and admirer in these good times, and the first to bite them in the rear as a hound in their time of weakness!

Furthermore, Mr. Khur, not every man sympathetic to slavery is evil. Controversy does not mean something is the work of the devil, or someone endorsing it is the devil. Shall you try to push everyone opposing your policies and views out of Congress? Is that how you deal with opposition, through quasi-legal and tyrannical means? Perhaps you desire a dictatorship under your governance, for who else would question the authority of states and citizens to severe their ties with a government willing to limit their liberties?

You also forget who I am, impudent man. I was one of the foremost Unionists in the Carolinas, clearly I am not one of those rebels. I was a leader of organized Unionist sentiments along the Eastern Coast, I am no flamboyant secessionist. Young men such as you may undervalue the freedom of old, but God I shall have no such passiveness!
 
Last edited:
Mr. Brockman, calm down; I doubt a term Callahan will destroy the Union all at once; slavery took decades; and once a Republican, or other true liberal, comes into office, the damge can be reversed. I don't believe secession would be at all useful, or advantageous, to our cause; it would make us appear the radicals, rather than the statists.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back