MTG Salvation

Quote from iTRV

So would you guys throw rocks at me for suggesting a splash of blue for Snapcaster Mage?

Quote from hyalapterouslemur

Quote from Zaphrasz

Same here. I don't like Ron Paul, but on this issue, he is correct.

Granted, it's a little disheartening that it took doing it to Americans to get to this point. I know that legally citizen versus not citizen is a big deal, but morally, it's not.

Libertarians are your standard stopped clock, really. Yeah, they're wrong about oh-so-much (They are, after all, essentially Social Darwinists.), but they understand, better than the center of Washington, why drones are a Bad Idea.

But it's nice to see the filibuster actually being used. I mean, you see Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, but you never actually see a filibuster.

Quote from Swazi Spring

Quote from TomCat26

Quote from Swazi Spring

I'm not entirely sure whether some of my views on government can be considered "conservative" or "liberal" in the modern sense of the terms. I have a philosophy all of my own, stemming predominately from the principles upon which America was founded, making them right-wing in nature. The fact of the matter is that the United States Constitution, while being the greatest form of government yet introduced, is deeply flawed. Unlike the liberals, I do not hate the Constitution, in fact, I have the utmost respect for it. My problem lies with how it started down the right path, but never quite reached it's destination.

The Constitution wasn't strong enough and over time, it allowed degenerates to stagnate and pervert our country. The Constitution did not embody protections to ensure that the ideology it represents would remain forever dominant. I view a constitution as a document that is set in stone, one that shall last indefinitely.

It is often said that the role of the state is the ultimate question in political philosophy. Many disagree on what this role should be, some argue that government should play as little of a role as possible and respect the fundamental rights of the people. Others view government as an entity which needs to constantly intervene in and control the lives of it's citizens. Which of these is correct? Is there a middle-ground? This is the question we have been struggling to answer since our beginnings.

As I previously mentioned, I believe the American Founding Fathers had started down the right path. However, they did not complete the journey, possibly because they underestimated just how corrupt and perverted we would become. This could have been prevented through provisions ensuring ideological purity.

To ensure ideological purity, we would need to educate the people. The Founders did this in the short-term through the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers. However, the Founders did not plan for the long game, they did not enact constitutional provisions to educate future generations. Perhaps they operated under the assumption that America's values and ideas would be passed down throughout the generations, but clearly this did not happen; due to the corruption of man.

The first steps towards ideological purity would be the utilization of educational institutions. These institutions would not only teach sciences and arithmetic, but the principles of the nation as well. In order to become a citizen, individuals would have to serve in the military and swear loyalty to the Constitution and principles of the nation. In addition to performing their military duties, all who serve would be required to regularly study the Constitution and principles of the nation. After earning citizenship, citizens would be free to vote and run for public office. All citizens would be required to keep arms for both defense of the state and defense from the state, should it ever become necessary. Foreigners wishing to immigrate to the nation would have to undergo service and study of both the Constitution and the principles of the nation.

What should happen to those who refuse to serve the state? I imagine that would be a matter of some debate, at first. Though it may sound "harsh," it may very well be necessary to re-educate such individuals. There would be no reason to not become a citizen, however, as the principles of the nation would be non-partisan. They would the universally agreed upon facets of society, ideas such as freedom, republican government, an armed citizenry, (con)federalism and the separation of powers. Citizens would be free to hold any views that they may like and the state would not discriminate against those for voicing such views, be they socialistic or libertarian.

I'm not entirely sure what to think of all that I have typed out above at this point, but I would like to know what you think.

Really stop it with the liberal hate.

I argued with you before. Liberal is a loose coalition of many factions who are temporarily bound for political expediency.

You are a conservative. But your views don't align with the Christian Right wing. I don't see you talking in here preaching Jesus.


In your mind, a conservative is a righteous hero. You defend liberty, protect
the nation. You are courageous powerful. You stand for everything good and holy.

A liberal is a coward. You believe them to be weak, spineless, destroyers of the nation, haters of everything good. You impute upon them every dark thing you can think of. Liberals are devils, weakminded individuals.

You are good. They are evil.


There's alot of things wrong with thinking of things like that. I know it feels
mighty good to think of yourself that way. You're a hero son, a defender of liberty. Does it feel good to think of yourself in this way? I'll bet it does.


I'm here to inform you, you are buying into a lie, a story that makes you feel good inside. And worse you're buying into a school of thought that will make you lose influence among people.



The liberal isn't this dark scoundrel like a disney villian. They are people--people you happen to share the country with.


Liberal is for now, the loose coalition of the interests of hollywood, environmentalists, minorities, pro-choice individuals, gay rights activists, unions.

Conservative is for now, the loose coalition of the religious right, pro-gun lobbyists, oil and big business interests, pure market advocates, and many many more factions you yourself named in a previous posting.

Study history and you realize, the current conception of liberal and conservative is a fleeting vapor in the wind. What if I called you a raging stupid Dixiecrat? A constitution hating Whig. A completely spineless Federalist. These are American political alliances that existed in the past, but have lost relevancy to the passage of time. The current conception of Liberal and Conservative won't hold either.

Don't place your self worth on identifying as a Conservative.


What if the next Republican candidate was a religious holy man who believed all guns should be abolished. But the Democrat candidate was 2nd amendment loving gay rights activist.

Which side would you vote for then? Would you be a traitor and vote democrat? Or would you recognize that in American politics, whichever side can unite more of these interest groups wins the next four years. It's a game bro.


What if a pro-lifer was the next conservative candidate, except that he was so pro-life he is also anti-gun and pacifistic. Would you support your conservative hero then?


It's not like the religious right are so motivated by the 2nd amendment anyway. What does a man of God care about defending your right to own a gun? The bible doesn't say anything about this. In fact the truly religious believe that the laws of God are higher than the laws of Man---even the Constitution. I dare you to go to any truly religious man and ask if you had to place one above the other which would you choose: The Constitution or the Word of God?

The man of God cares about what he cares about, and you care about what you care about. You don't have much in common with him, except for that fact that politically you two are temporarily aligned.


You know why listening to Rush is bad and will lose you influence? Because the center, the swing voters can't stand him. In fact, many people on this forum can't stand him. Sorry but in this game of politics, you need to convince the center to win. And unless conservatives actually win in politics, they;re going to become another footnote in US history, like Dixiecrats and Whigs.



You just can't maintain political power and influence in this nation without securing the independent swing voters. There are simply too many of them.


And if majority of them can't stand to listen to Rush, then bringing his ideology to them will probably yield similar results.

Bottom line, if Rush can't get the center independent voters to listen to his program, you won't be able to them to listen to you either by spouting his views.


If you want to start winning people over to the right side, stop demonizing your opponent. It's mentally lazy and is nothing but a feel good attitude, but it doesn't convince a single one of them to join your cause and ideas. In fact you'll probably drive away more of the center towards the liberal cause.


There are PLENTY of decent and strong arguments for the conservative agenda. So instead of walking around with an attitude that all liberals are haters of the constitution, learn some rational arguments and articulate them. As a moderate liberal, I think these are good non-partisan counter-arguments to liberal ideologies.

--against gun control, I think the lack of emphasis on our mental health system is a great counterargument to the gun debate, and that gun restriction is entirely misplaced.

--against deficit spending, I think a great argument is that Keynesian monetary policy creates liquidity traps and fails to stimulate the economy, putting us in debt. See Japan.

--against Military spending, I think that military spending can be reallocated towards military research, and that concentration of financial spending in our military yields economic efficiencies that are otherwise difficult to obtain.


You're going to have to decide at some point Swazi Spring, whether you just want to listen to people who already agree with you (Rush), or whether you want to go out and convince people who don't agree with you to actually join the conservative cause. Remember every Liberal you win over, is not only a win for you, but a loss for them as well.

A very well thought out post, I agree with much of what you posted. You make a lot of good points about appealing to independent voters and I agree with you. The problem is the media, the liberal media has become so powerful that even if every Christian fundamentalist suddenly died, the liberal media would still attack the right for being "racist, Christian, homophobic, fascist war on women, Bible-thumping bigots." They would continue to throw every buzzword they could find at anyone who opposes them, especially if it isn't true.

If we lived in a world where the media was non-partisan, then what you propose would work. There are also some things that can never be compromised on. We're not going to compromise on the Constitution or freedom, these are what we believe in. The Democrats have moved so far left that it is almost impossible to compromise with them, as doing so would result in giving up our freedom and the Constitution. I don't know about you, but I pot doing the right thing above trying to win over a few undecided voters. Also note that the Republicans won the vast majority of independent voters in the last election, so it would seem that there is no need to win them over.

Quote from Illinest

Now what DO we have? We have a society that is so fearful of "socialism" that we are paralyzed by that fear. Capitalism requires interventions. If you aren't willing to let the government intervene against corporations then you end up with corporations whose interests become disproportionately large.

Quote from IceCreamMan80 »

We're not talking about flying things at my house. This was a flag pole at a state building.

Quote from void_nothing

The Constitution guarantees the separation of church and state, not the separation of politics and state. A state by definition does nothing but politics. The state of Oregon has chosen to identify that its policies are for the freedom of all adults to love and marry whom they choose, which is a valid thing to yoke to the American flag.

Ask your mother if she wishes America to be a "Christian nation" then would she rather it become similar to Iran, a nation that is explicitly Islamic. She'll get a kick out of that one.

Quote from IWasteMoneyOnCardboard

Hey wow the guy from Belgium has a better idea of what democracy is.

You need a definition? It exists. Democracy isn't a vague term.

Democracy n. 1.government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

Heres a definition. Bolded is the answer to your question.

Hooray for books!

Quote from Nev

Eternal formats also create more casual curbstomping. The guy who has all the staples will almost always steamroll the guy with the cheap scrubby deck. Having all the standard staples requires you to keep going off to get them. It takes more effort (and yes, it does fund Wizards) but it means that no one is just going to autohave them for all time. Also, more offbeat strategies tend to be able to go toe to toe with them than in an eternal format in my opinion.

Quote from mrisaiahc

but other formats like legacy all have the same deck. every player i know in legacy has the same deck deck. standard outshines everythin else except EDH because cards rotate and a the same bull**** isnt in every deck

Quote from Razerblaze

I'd bet that most MTG players reason for not liking the eternal formats aren't limited to the fact that just the lands alone cost upwards of $1000 to be even remotely competitive, but because the format revoles around 1) broken turn 1/2 win combos or 2) broken control that results in 45+ minute games, and zero chance that a rogue deck can compete.