Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[cowofdoom78963]

I still think that the CCS should go to the homeless shelter when their out of money, they should just lose massive amounts of juice as a penalty.

[Capntastic]

But conservatives despise charity and handouts!   Imagine...leeching off the tax dollars of honest workers!

[Granite26]

But conservatives despise charity and handouts!   Imagine...leeching off the tax dollars of honest workers!

Good point... maybe a faith-based organization?  Or 'going back to daddy for more money', which gives you cash, but reduces... something

Edit:  Rich privilege increasing liberal rage?

[cowofdoom78963]

But conservatives despise charity and handouts!   Imagine...leeching off the tax dollars of honest workers!

Exactly, thus the daily juice drain from being in such an institution.

[EuchreJack]

Maybe instead of turning abandoned factories into business fronts, the CSS just turn abandoned military bases, fallout shelters, and isolated rural locations that they just build compounds that they name after they fortify it or buy improvements. So things like the "Robert E Lee Bunker" could be a possible randomly generated name for the compound like "Lucas Manpower" is for the LCS.

The same mechanic, just a slightly different flavor that suggests the CCS relies less on deception and subterfuge to hide out from the authorites and more on obscurity and isolation. Think like the real-life compounds conservatives have built like David Koresh's compound, Ayran Nation, and Elohim City.

The default site could be "The Desert Eagle Bar and Grill" since that can be said to be the big scummy 24 hr dive-bar/ package store the CCS can loiter at for free. They can recruit bikers and whatnot if they cause trouble like at the homeless shelter. The idea of the CCS living off stale pretzles and abandoned piss-warm beers is funnier then having them crash at some church charity house akin to the homeless shelter.

Or, we could have the CCS safehouses be the the standard "Desert Bar and Grill"/"Robert E. Lee Bunker"/etc., while the LCS safehouse be the "Homeless Shelter" and a couple of Liberal Business Fronts.

Thanks, that coincides with what I was thinking.

However, the problem with Outskirts locations is the need of a car in order to send a squad there, despite it being very accurate that the CCS have bases in the outskirts of the city.

[Granite26]

possibly invert the whole thing?  Start with a car, but need to get a bike or electric cart or expensive 'city driving permit' in order to get to the city locations due to environmental and congestion laws?

Solves the problem AND adds another layer of 'damn hippies' to the game.

[E. Albright]

Well, no. That doesn't sound right. You'd need to take socialist Mass Transit into the inner city at the start, is all.

[Aldaris]

Well, no. That doesn't sound right. You'd need to take socialist Mass Transit into the inner city at the start, is all.

...Which results in juice hits...

[Andir]

It's funny reading through these posts and seeing so many interpretations of what Conservatism and Liberalism is because it's been twisted to mean such interesting things recently.  Conservatism meaning the maintenance of the current and liberal meaning the uprooting of common convention for a progressive change.  Of course, by these meanings, liberals will soon become conservative and conservatives will soon become liberals trying to change to accept their ways.

I generally place conservatism and liberalism in terms of resources.  I'd also like to point out that (in my opinion) possessions (be it guns, money, etc.) are not a liberal vs. conservative issue.  It's a Libertarian vs Authoritarian issue.

If you think about a square:

Code: [Select]

         Libertarian
        A-----------B
        |           |
Liberal |           | Conservative
        |           |
        C-----------D
        Authoritarian
You can place personal choice, personal property, and personal rights on the libertarian side of the box.  (Personal being the keyword)  You place distribution of wealth, state property, and such things as "public owned" in the authoritarian side.  (Social/Communal: Controlled/owned by the Authorities)  You place abundance on the liberal side and necessity on the conservative side.

Liberal vs Conservative is just a degree of each of these ideals.  I'm talking about resource conservative vs resource liberal.  Resources being everything from labor to land.

Examples of these...
A.  Liberal Libertarian:  Giving everyone as much liberty as they can to do what they like.  (Anarchy)

B.  Conservative Libertarian:  Someone who wants personal freedom as long as it doesn't use too many resources or require too much overhead.  (The original US Government, Peaceful Tribes of Native Americans -- now, I know what you are going to say, and I'll respond with a singular word: "corruption."  The founders learned from the Native Americans and I'm sure they were an influence.)

C.  Liberal Authoritarian:  Forcing everyone to sacrifice as much as they can for the government/authoritarian need to expand as much as possible.  (Communism)

D.  Conservative Authoritarian:  The small strong government enforcing at the expense of personal rights.  (Oligarchy/Dictatorship)

Now, owning a gun is something I would not place in the conservative bracket exclusively.  It's more of a resource or a property.  Authoritarians would rather the government control these and Libertarians opt for personal ownership.  Now, a liberal libertarian would be all for gun ownership... several guns, as big as you like!  A conservative libertarian could say, "If you need one, make it a small one."  A liberal authoritarian thinks we need a huge government military and policing the world and a conservative authoritarian thinks we might just need one big enough to defend our borders.

Now, I know this flies in the face of the current conservative/liberal stereotype, but think about the meaning of the words and you'll see why I laugh at all these posts.

[Leafsnail]

Whoosh!  It seems that Andir cannot understand political satire.  Afterall, ASCII games are srs bsns, right?

[Servant Corps]

Andir, would you mind making a post about how domestic terrorism is useful for political activists in drawing attention to neglected political issues?

[Megaman]

There is only one thing I will have problems with sleeping at night for. Bombing schoolbuses because they are sources of public transportations.

[Frogwarrior]

I just wanna say, if CCS ever becomes a reality, it needs to have the People for the Ethical Treatment of Plants in it. Synthetic foods only! Not to mention the persecution of gardeners for unfairly violating plants' freedom to reproduce and grow where they want.

[E. Albright]

Whoosh!  It seems that Andir cannot understand political satire.  Afterall, ASCII games are srs bsns, right?

You know, I was going to lay in on his typically libertarian exclusion of the very possibility of anarchism being other than anarcho-capitalism and such individualist strains, or how his laser focus on property ignores all notions of social contracts (and has a wonky view of "authority"), but I think your response is more apropos.

Andir: liberalism and conservatism as debated here are crude hyperbolic stereotypes. They're supposed to be laughable.

[Andir]

Whoosh!  It seems that Andir cannot understand political satire.  Afterall, ASCII games are srs bsns, right?

You know, I was going to lay in on his typically libertarian exclusion of the very possibility of anarchism being other than anarcho-capitalism and such individualist strains, or how his laser focus on property ignores all notions of social contracts (and has a wonky view of "authority"), but I think your response is more apropos.

Andir: liberalism and conservatism as debated here are crude hyperbolic stereotypes. They're supposed to be laughable.

You assume I wasn't laughing... just for a different reason than you were.  Reading back on it, it does sound kind of serious... and no, I don't agree that view on authority is wonky in any means.  You let someone else decide your rights... social contracts really have no place there.  You give up some personal freedom (liberty) for social contracts.  If you claimed you were a strict libertarian, you'd be living in a woods, in a cabin you built yourself.  The Letters are more of a vector as opposed to a limit.