Free Republicans--Old Party HQ

[unmerged(4007)]

Mr Besuchov,

Thank you for your attention, and we look forward to working together in those areas where we do have common cause. Though we have to question the grounds for your opposition to the death penalty. Obviously a murderer whose identity is proven by DNA testing, represents a "threat to society." He's already threatened the framework of society by the taking of life. Nothing is more threatening to society than murder. Your position seems fundamentally unsound.

Most Respectfully,
Sean Galloglaigh

 

[Besuchov]

Mr Galloglaigh

If a prisoner that is locked up and under guard presents an iminent threat to anyone then there is something seriously wrong with our prison system.

The state should not be allowed to kill any human being unless it is to protect the life of other citizens and certainly not to avenge a citizen allready killed.


Sincerely Besuchov

 

[hughbartlett]

OOC:

[OOC: DNA is wrong in two percent of cases./OOC]

MR. Shawng1, we do not believe that we have been corrupted our mislead by the left, if you remember correctly, we are and have always been to the left, but closer to the centre. If you look at our pillars, you can confirms this, but when you lokk at your policies you clearly see quite a strong right wing lean. A Centrist party with 100% free trade?!me>

 

[unmerged(4007)]

To: Fellow FR members

Given the recent flap over negotiations with other groups, I thought I might clear the air with you all to let you know who and why I have talked to.

1) We talked with the ERP for a possible centrist coalition. They turned out to buy the RD propaganda regarding us. Their choice, our conscience is clean, and they will never get as good a deal playing third fiddle behind the socialists as they would've from us. Of course they aren't even a party in truth right now, so it's of little consequence in real terms.

2) The Libertarians- Why? Because they share our economic principles. They tend towards conscience clauses on morality issues, so they do not upset our agenda in the social sphere, and their military policy is similar to ours. We are on friendly terms, and I think that is sufficient for now. I did speak of a possible strategic alliance with them, but we are both content to be on friendly terms until we get closer to election.

3) The Nordic Liberation Party- Obviously as an oppressed minority in EUtopia, we sympathize with them. We are a party in favor of decentralization and federalism, and this blends very nicely with their requests for autonomy. Why should we not consult with them on possible strategic interests? I have suggested alliance to them.

4) Royalist Party- This has been a sounding out to see where they stand. That is all. Talks continue with them, but we have not promised them anything. Point of interest, what is the stance of the party towards the Monarchy? Not in terms of having power as such, but a symbolic Head of State? I have NOT suggested alliance with them, but said we may work towards that in the future if we know where one another stand at that time.

5) We spoke with the Labor Union, but we have told them nothing more than "we will aid them when our interests converge." And I intend to offer them no more than this.

6) We spoke with the CA, we have many mutual areas of agreement, and as they are a lobby, and not a party, partnering with them where we agree is entirely wise.

7) We spoke with the military lobby, and our talks were more friendly than the others, but they are a lobby, not a party. We are not beholden to them. But will listen to their advice and take it when useful.

8) We have spoken to the Corporate Alliance- Although we disagree with their Protectionist stance, on many issues of policy, we will be in agreement. Certainly they will find better friends with us than they will the Socialists!

9) I spoke with the Anglican Bishop in a PERSONAL capacity, merely noting our mutual interest in Judeo-Christian ethics. I did not suggest that the Anglican Church "ally' with anyone.

These are the groups I initiated contact with as party chair. I have not--as a certain RD loose cannon has professed--promised to ally with everyone. I have suggested alliance to 3 parties. All of whom have significant areas of agreement and would have formed a solid center to right coalition. That's been my agenda as party chair, to make such an alliance a possibility (like the NCA, which nearly succeeded previously).

 

[unmerged(4007)]

Bartlett,

Lots of parties believe in free trade as an ideal, across the political spectrum. Why else create a European COMMON MARKET? Please indeed. Interesting, that you would condemn the one thing that 100% of all economists, Marx to Smith, have agreed on, that free trade is an economic necessity. Free Trade is also a historic safeguard to freedom in general.

 

[hughbartlett]

I agree to free trade myself, but with moderate protectionism. The chicago school in its essence, as I believe you have it here, means everywhere in the world there is free trade, 100% free trade, with no protectionism at all. This is not centrist.

We are still willing to have friendly relations with you, but presently find that your treatment of us, and the RD is appaling, and that your policies do not align with ours. We wish you well, purely for form personally.



[OOC: I know what you are syaing, but you must admit that what i am saying is also truthful predominently to you and fully to me./OOC]

 

[unmerged(4007)]

100% free trade world wide would be the IDEAL, yes. But we're not so ideological we are unaware of living in a real world.

Our treatment of you? Pardon? We treated you cordially. We offered you more positions in a cabinet than you currently have members! That's ill treatment! You won't get treatment that good from the RD, I can guarantee you that.

As for the RD, please do me a favor and look who started the flame war. Mr Mel's article was FIRST. He started the "flame war" you apparently got upset about. But you're all set to be buddy-buddy with him after he savaged the FR. So please, don't play altruism on us. You've jumped into bed with a party that's avowedly cooperating with the far left, and refuse to condemn their missteps as you seem so willing to do the assumed ones of ours. Mr Vasco apparently convinced you that we started this because he said that everywhere. Just because someone says a falsehood (intentional or no) all over the forum (technically spam, but you notice none of the mods are willing to censor THEIR friends) doesn't make it true. You can read the times of posts, quite simply, mel's was first. And in any case, as I said, the St Brenden's Times is not an FR paper, so if IT said something you don't like, that is NOT the FR's position by default.

No, I'm afraid this comes down to you being duped. The ESRP is MUCH further to the left than we are to the right. But you're all set to pat them on the back. Frankly you've been dishonest and broken faith with us. The difference is that I expect this in politics, and others assume that everyone here acts from altruism.

Now this is our party HQ. If you have authentic business with the party, inform me via PM first and then we'll discuss it.

 

[unmerged(4007)]

Pardon the interruption. Now, to continue clearing the air, regarding the RD.

As has been noted, we have been accused of poisoning relations with the Rally for Democracy.

1) Did anyone know if there were relations to poison? Has anyone from the RD been here to discuss possible grounds of agreement. Has anyone from the RD even expressed anything but apathy towards our existence from our formation? When did we have relations to poison? The RD's choice was to ignore us from Day 1.

2) Regarding the so-called "flame war." The simple fact is the Public Interest's Editorial was the first post to savage a party. Anyone can look at the time and see that, and guess which party was the victim? Yep, of course, us. The St Brenden's Times has run response articles to this, but the extent of MY response (and the SBT is NOT our party newspaper, or even written by anyone in the SBT), was two responses to Mr Vasco's slander. I certainly did not barge into someone else's HQ and accuse their party's leader of insanity! So if there's a "flame war" between our parties, our party neither started it, nor is promoting it.

3) Regarding the RD. If they desired to ally with us, I would set one condition, and one condition only. "Withdraw your pledge of 'close cooperation' with the ESRP." If the RD would have promoted a "Grand Centrist" coalition, they would have had a friend in our party. Our basic principles, AS STATED, are not that far apart. Of course, they immediately turned left, which seems to belie their platform. But if they were willing to operate consistently with what they SAY they believe, there's no reason they would not have a firm friend in the FR.

4) Regarding future relations: This is politics. People act the way they do to attain an advantage, seen or imagined. I am not going to say, "We will never ally with the RD." I have laid our one groundrule for a possible alliance with them. For my part, I am willing to set aside the slights the Public Interest and the Living Loose Cannon Mr Vasco brought against me. But they have to decide if they will be adults and act in their best interest or not. If they do not, I have little doubt that we will have the superior position when the dust settles.

Thank you.

 

[unmerged(1522)]

Originally posted by shawng1
Mr Mel's article was FIRST. He started the "flame war" you apparently got upset about.

Has the current leader of the FR or has he not repeatedly denounced the RD as "ultra-leftist" and roundly condemned its political strategy? Has he or has he not done so before the RD engaged in negotiations with any other parties? Has he or has he not done so before the RD made any public statements regarding their views of other parties? Has he contacted the RD to see whether they might be interested in cooperation before starting to denounce them?

Regarding your comment that the RD chose to ignore the FR: the FR likewise chose not to negotiate with the RD. However, it also adopted a rather hostile rhetoric regarding the RD, whereas the RD has so far refrained from doing the same with regard to the FR. Current attempts at painting the RD as the bad guys notwithstanding, it was in fact the FR's rash statements which forestalled any negotiations; whether that situation will change depends on future developments, not least concerning your party's attitude to the RD.

you notice none of the mods are willing to censor THEIR friends

OOC:

Needless to say, I don't agree with that assessment. However, even if all mods were indeed biased I doubt it'd be in the same way. And I believe there is about half a dozen of us in this forum now, plus UD, so you'd think someone would catch any spam sooner or later. On a serious note, please weigh your comments in this regard a bit more carefully.

 

[unmerged(4007)]

OOC-"Vasco" posted on no less than a half dozen threads I could count. The sum total of his contribution was I'm a liar and I'd ally with Satan, plus his wonderful claim of my insanity in our HQ (OOC NO LESS!). That's spam in any forum I've ever been on. Now maybe no one saw it because it was a holiday in the States, fine. But if you said my remarks were "impolite," what were his? End OOC

I never denounced your party as "ultra-leftist." I have attacked certain ACTIONS of your party as such. Note the difference. You have committed a false transferral in your rhetoric. I waited until you expressed your desire for "close cooperation" with the Socialists. Did I start talking with other parties. Sure. But what party did I go to first? Another CENTRIST party. You were the one who made the first move to the extreme of the spectrum. With that, we made serious advances with the other parties. Basically this is condemning the FR for outworking you. So sorry we didn't live down to your expectations.

We took no "hostile" rhetoric towards the RD until your turn left. Your article was by far more hostile in rhetoric to anything prior. And that's not counting Vasco's contribution, which had no policy, no strategy, and no desire to negotiate, just straight caustic claims we started a flame war. Which wasn't true. We never flamed your party. We disagreed with your actions. This is politics, I didn't know we were supposed to kowtow to the RD and say you're the emblem of political perfection.

As for negotiating an alliance, I've offered you our terms. I think they're very moderate. Our goal is a centrist alliance if we can have one. But it's up to you to decide if you'll dump the self-professed Marxists and join with us. If you won't, that's too bad, for you.

 

[unmerged(4007)]

Strategic Decision

To fellow FR members:

Your input on how to resolve the recent FR/RD matter is desired, please consider the options and decide which one you prefer. I will align party strategy according to your desire on this.

1) Ally with the RD, no conditions, include the Socialists, who cares, we'll have a say in a Government for sure, even if we would be stretched to the far left.

2) Ally with RD is fine, on the one condition I have already named with them in dialogue, that is, a centrist alliance that requires their leaving behind the ESRP.

3) Wait until after the election, and see what we can arrange. Though we will have to continue to negotiate a coalition of our own to compete in the elections to cover all bases.

4) The RD is to be treated as the enemy. No negotiations, period, even if that means if we lost the election we go into opposition.

Please simply vote along the lines of whichever option is closest, if you want to nuance one, say how, but your basic decision will be counted as the numerical answer for purposes of tally. To be fair, if no option gets a clear majority of the members, there will be a run off of the top 2.

NOTE- This is an INTERNAL party matter, outside intrusion on this discussion is neither required nor desired.

 

[unmerged(1522)]

Originally posted by shawng1
OOC-"Vasco" posted on no less than a half dozen threads I could count.

[OOC:

I don't share the view that IKK is spamming the forum. /OOC]

But if you said my remarks were "impolite," what were his? End OOC

I don't disagree with you.

I never denounced your party as "ultra-leftist." I have attacked certain ACTIONS of your party as such. Note the difference.

"the Free Republicans have far more in common with your party than the ultra-leftist RDers. I'd suggest you ask you and your party if you'd rather be in coalition with a inclusive centrist party with mild right leanings like the FRers, or a party that seeks to align itself with Socialists and other far-left extremist groups. We would submit a coalition of the "sane center" of EUtopian politics would be better for both our parties, and better for EUtopia as a whole."

"You also would find more protection of private citizens rights in the Federalist Government we support than with the leftists and their all-encompassing, all devouring Centralized Government. It would make sense to form common cause in a coalition to stop the leftists (RDers and their emerging ultra-left wing coalition) from stampeding our rights and destroying the economic freedom both our parties cherish."

But what party did I go to first? Another CENTRIST party. You were the one who made the first move to the extreme of the spectrum.

And as has been said repeatedly, we are also talking to the ERP.

We took no "hostile" rhetoric towards the RD until your turn left. Your article was by far more hostile in rhetoric to anything prior.

See your quotes above. And I don't see my initial article as exceptionally hostile - I simply described your actions and attitudes and added a bit of sarcasm.

This is politics [...]

I assume I can't claim the same?

I didn't know we were supposed to kowtow to the RD and say you're the emblem of political perfection.

Oh, would you?

As for negotiating an alliance, I've offered you our terms. I think they're very moderate. Our goal is a centrist alliance if we can have one.

We'll see what the future brings. Personally, I'm not discounting any possibilities at this time.

 

[unmerged(4007)]

The two quotations both are after your discussions with the ESRP started. As I have noted, from where I sit as party chair, I cannot see us aligning with a party that runs athwart almost all our basic principles, as the ESRP does. They are Marxist in economics, ethically opposed to our Social agenda, for much more goernment intrusion than is even necessary, for a more centralized government that would run against our basic federalist commitments, the only thing we'd agree on, I assume, is military matters. Only in a National Emergency Unity Government would I consider such an option.

That said, I have opened this to the party entire to see if they agree. At this point, as we see it, we have no option but to assume we will be on opposite sides of the fence come election time unless something comes quickly. I'm kinda funny on the honor thing. If we form a coalition before then, we'll sink or swim with them. So an 11th hour switch will be very unlikely from this perch. I understand wanting room to maneuver, but I'm not von Ribbentrop.

 

[unmerged(1522)]

Originally posted by shawng1
The two quotations both are after your discussions with the ESRP started.

Sorry, but we've had no discussions with the ESRP. It is, however, true that we are interested in future talks with them and have indicated this to them very clearly.

 

[unmerged(4007)]

Sorry if I'm not gullible enough to believe that MMDS' remarks regarding a hope for future cooperation in the ESRP HQ thread represent the view of only himself and whatever was in his pocket at the time. When a political operative sees that, knowing that the left coalition was your ploy in Eutopia I, he begins his own machinations by nature. Now if he spoke out of turn, that's too bad. But he isn't just any old member of your party, he's your Presidential Candidate. I'd have to be quite the ignoramus not to take note of a remark like that.

So no, we're not going to stand by like sacrificial lambs this time and hope that a bone gets thrown our way afterwards. If you want to talk, and my party is willing to listen, we'll talk. But unless the party tells me differently, the one term I've named is absolutely not negotiable. And we aren't going to wait until you have your majority to start negotiating.

Now, unless you have something new to add, this can be continued by PM if at all.

 

[Petrarca]

Re: OOC:

Originally posted by hughbartlett
[OOC: DNA is wrong in two percent of cases./OOC]

MR. Shawng1, we do not believe that we have been corrupted our mislead by the left, if you remember correctly, we are and have always been to the left, but closer to the centre. If you look at our pillars, you can confirms this, but when you lokk at your policies you clearly see quite a strong right wing lean. A Centrist party with 100% free trade?!me>

I must say, Signor, that your claim that no centrist party would support free trade en totum is a ridiculous one. The moderate wing of the Democratic Party, led by the Democratic Leadership Council, for example, advocates as best as practically possible full free trade. Protectionist measures are part of the far right and left, the unreasonable extremes, not the center.

As for negotiations with the RD, I would accept a coalition with them as long as the Socialists were not part of the government. I don't see how we could have a voice in the same coalition with them. All we would be doing would be providing votes for the RD.

I apologize for my recent absence from the political scene, as business has called me recently to Europe.

-S. Petrarca

 

[unmerged(3748)]

Goodday, Free Republicans.

I apologise for this unasked entry into your party headquarters, but i believe to have an interesting proposal. I have no reason to disrespect your members or your ideals, on the contrary, i feel we have a few common points that we can focus on together. It sad to see such a discussion has erupted between our both parties, and would like to see it solved entirely.

I suggest that you contact me personally if any questions about our party and your relation to us arise. I will be most glad to clarify anything that is unclear. I also offer my apologies for certain mishaps of the past and hope we can work together in the future. Personally, I am moderately interested by the prospect of further talks with your party.

With most cordial regards,
Sebastian Fitzpatrick of the Rally of Democracy

 

[Murmurandus]

Originally posted by shawng1
Sorry if I'm not gullible enough to believe that MMDS' remarks regarding a hope for future cooperation in the ESRP HQ thread represent the view of only himself and whatever was in his pocket at the time. When a political operative sees that, knowing that the left coalition was your ploy in Eutopia I, he begins his own machinations by nature. Now if he spoke out of turn, that's too bad. But he isn't just any old member of your party, he's your Presidential Candidate. I'd have to be quite the ignoramus not to take note of a remark like that.

...

Dear Mr. Galloglaigh,

I just happen to notice your remarks as mentioned above.

As you might have noticed from my previous 'reign' (Eutopia 1), I to first person to have an open mind on future cooperations and/or coallitions.

I'm willing to work with almost everybody as long as their stances aren't too extreme or offensive. I never exclude parties or persons before I get to know them better.

However I propose that future talks between the FR and RD will be handle by Mr. Silent Eagle in order to avoid further misunderstandings.

Best regards

MMDS

 

[unmerged(4007)]

Mr Petrarca,

Thank you for your vote on this issue. I am refraining from further comment on RD/FR matters (such as discussions with Mr Fitzpatrick), until I know the mind of the party as a whole.

Would you be interested in acting as Editor-in-Chief of the FR newspaper?

 

[unmerged(7374)]

You can count me in.

VM