*rolls his eyes* Cue the feigned indignation, I see. I wasn't the one wrote "totalitarian" in a thread and thought I'd get away with it as if the use of that word could ever not be considered baseless scaremongering; the appeal has been smashed - it didn't anywhere even near 50% support and this is just a last ditch attempt from you and Southern Bellz to anger and rally up the lowest common denominator in The South Pacific. It won't happen so long as people continue to debate you on an intellectual level and remind them of the merits of law - reason over rhetoric.

(02-22-2015, 01:04 PM)Unibot Wrote: *rolls his eyes* Cue the feigned indignation, I see. I wasn't the one wrote "totalitarian" in a thread and thought I'd get away with it as if the use of that word could ever not be considered baseless scaremongering; the appeal has been smashed - it didn't anywhere even near 50% support and this is just a last ditch attempt from you and Southern Bellz to anger and rally up the lowest common denominator in The South Pacific. It won't happen so long as people continue to debate you on an intellectual level and remind them of the merits of law - reason over rhetoric.

This amendment was not only about Belschaft, which I demonstrated by trying to move the conversation back to the abstract. Rather, it was about what was exposed by seeing the provision in action. I didn't know (or didn't remember) that this provision even existed until the Cabinet exercised it.

Your insinuations of my insincerity and against my character are shameful and wrong. I seriously used to respect you in your role as Chair, even if we clashed elsewhere.

(02-22-2015, 01:04 PM)Escade Wrote: Unibot, I have to figure out how to get into the old forums that Hileville used to run. Then I plan to do a "side by side comparison" of many things. I wish they could have just been archived onto here for everyone to see.

Click the link that we have provided. We've told you this more than once already.

(02-22-2015, 01:08 PM)HEM Wrote:

(02-22-2015, 01:04 PM)Unibot Wrote: *rolls his eyes* Cue the feigned indignation, I see. I wasn't the one wrote "totalitarian" in a thread and thought I'd get away with it as if the use of that word could ever not be considered baseless scaremongering; the appeal has been smashed - it didn't anywhere even near 50% support and this is just a last ditch attempt from you and Southern Bellz to anger and rally up the lowest common denominator in The South Pacific. It won't happen so long as people continue to debate you on an intellectual level and remind them of the merits of law - reason over rhetoric.

This amendment was not only about Belschaft, which I demonstrated by trying to move the conversation back to the abstract. Rather, it was about what was exposed by seeing the provision in action. I didn't know (or didn't remember) that this provision even existed until the Cabinet exercised it.

Your insinuations of my insincerity and against my character are shameful and wrong. I seriously used to respect you in your role as Chair, even if we clashed elsewhere.

First of all, you just called my actions in the cabinet, "totalitarian". Scholars generally debate whether Hitler was a totalitarian or not. I do take offense with your populist rhetoric and if you want to talk about offense,how about you start by conducting yourself in this debate with a less sensationalist tone. But since I sense the point of this thread is sensationalism, I won't hold my breath...

And second, this debate is very much about 'moving things to the abstract'  - hoping people are drawn to a more ambiguous argument regarding democracy. It's a nonsense argument, however. Belschaft is a security risk and the region has supported the decision. The checks and balances are present and Belschaft as not received near enough support to achieve an appeal, even an appeal using a simple majority. 

(02-22-2015, 01:29 PM)Unibot Wrote:

(02-22-2015, 01:08 PM)HEM Wrote:

(02-22-2015, 01:04 PM)Unibot Wrote: *rolls his eyes* Cue the feigned indignation, I see. I wasn't the one wrote "totalitarian" in a thread and thought I'd get away with it as if the use of that word could ever not be considered baseless scaremongering; the appeal has been smashed - it didn't anywhere even near 50% support and this is just a last ditch attempt from you and Southern Bellz to anger and rally up the lowest common denominator in The South Pacific. It won't happen so long as people continue to debate you on an intellectual level and remind them of the merits of law - reason over rhetoric.

This amendment was not only about Belschaft, which I demonstrated by trying to move the conversation back to the abstract. Rather, it was about what was exposed by seeing the provision in action. I didn't know (or didn't remember) that this provision even existed until the Cabinet exercised it.

Your insinuations of my insincerity and against my character are shameful and wrong. I seriously used to respect you in your role as Chair, even if we clashed elsewhere.

First of all, you just called my actions in the cabinet, "totalitarian". Scholars generally debate whether Hitler was a totalitarian or not. I do take offense with your populist rhetoric and if you want to talk about offense,how about you start by conducting yourself in this debate with a less sensationalist tone. But since I sense the point of this thread is sensationalism, I won't hold my breath...

And second, this debate is very much about 'moving things to the abstract'  - hoping people are drawn to a more ambiguous argument regarding democracy. It's a nonsense argument, however. Belschaft is a security risk and the region has supported the decision. The checks and balances are present and Belschaft as not received near enough support to achieve an appeal, even an appeal using a simple majority. 

A Guidebook for Defending the Status Quo, Chapter 4: Throw in ambiguous references to Hitler and hope your audience is stupid enough to just nod along.

Com'on guys -- no matter our feelings on the matter, we can remain civil in debating it.

Guys would be incorrect. It was Unibot who insisted on dragging me into the mud whilst I desperately attempt to get people to think about this issue.

(02-22-2015, 02:03 PM)HEM Wrote:

(02-22-2015, 01:29 PM)Unibot Wrote:

(02-22-2015, 01:08 PM)HEM Wrote:

(02-22-2015, 01:04 PM)Unibot Wrote: *rolls his eyes* Cue the feigned indignation, I see. I wasn't the one wrote "totalitarian" in a thread and thought I'd get away with it as if the use of that word could ever not be considered baseless scaremongering; the appeal has been smashed - it didn't anywhere even near 50% support and this is just a last ditch attempt from you and Southern Bellz to anger and rally up the lowest common denominator in The South Pacific. It won't happen so long as people continue to debate you on an intellectual level and remind them of the merits of law - reason over rhetoric.

This amendment was not only about Belschaft, which I demonstrated by trying to move the conversation back to the abstract. Rather, it was about what was exposed by seeing the provision in action. I didn't know (or didn't remember) that this provision even existed until the Cabinet exercised it.

Your insinuations of my insincerity and against my character are shameful and wrong. I seriously used to respect you in your role as Chair, even if we clashed elsewhere.

First of all, you just called my actions in the cabinet, "totalitarian". Scholars generally debate whether Hitler was a totalitarian or not. I do take offense with your populist rhetoric and if you want to talk about offense,how about you start by conducting yourself in this debate with a less sensationalist tone. But since I sense the point of this thread is sensationalism, I won't hold my breath...

And second, this debate is very much about 'moving things to the abstract'  - hoping people are drawn to a more ambiguous argument regarding democracy. It's a nonsense argument, however. Belschaft is a security risk and the region has supported the decision. The checks and balances are present and Belschaft as not received near enough support to achieve an appeal, even an appeal using a simple majority. 

A Guidebook for Defending the Status Quo, Chapter 4: Throw in ambiguous references to Hitler and hope your audience is stupid enough to just nod along.

I didn't suggest this situation was at all comparable with the Third Reich - I was debating your use of the word, "totalitarian" which I consider absolutely sensationalist. 

(02-22-2015, 03:16 PM)Unibot Wrote:

(02-22-2015, 02:03 PM)HEM Wrote:

(02-22-2015, 01:29 PM)Unibot Wrote:

(02-22-2015, 01:08 PM)HEM Wrote:

(02-22-2015, 01:04 PM)Unibot Wrote: *rolls his eyes* Cue the feigned indignation, I see. I wasn't the one wrote "totalitarian" in a thread and thought I'd get away with it as if the use of that word could ever not be considered baseless scaremongering; the appeal has been smashed - it didn't anywhere even near 50% support and this is just a last ditch attempt from you and Southern Bellz to anger and rally up the lowest common denominator in The South Pacific. It won't happen so long as people continue to debate you on an intellectual level and remind them of the merits of law - reason over rhetoric.

This amendment was not only about Belschaft, which I demonstrated by trying to move the conversation back to the abstract. Rather, it was about what was exposed by seeing the provision in action. I didn't know (or didn't remember) that this provision even existed until the Cabinet exercised it.

Your insinuations of my insincerity and against my character are shameful and wrong. I seriously used to respect you in your role as Chair, even if we clashed elsewhere.

First of all, you just called my actions in the cabinet, "totalitarian". Scholars generally debate whether Hitler was a totalitarian or not. I do take offense with your populist rhetoric and if you want to talk about offense,how about you start by conducting yourself in this debate with a less sensationalist tone. But since I sense the point of this thread is sensationalism, I won't hold my breath...

And second, this debate is very much about 'moving things to the abstract'  - hoping people are drawn to a more ambiguous argument regarding democracy. It's a nonsense argument, however. Belschaft is a security risk and the region has supported the decision. The checks and balances are present and Belschaft as not received near enough support to achieve an appeal, even an appeal using a simple majority. 

A Guidebook for Defending the Status Quo, Chapter 4: Throw in ambiguous references to Hitler and hope your audience is stupid enough to just nod along.

I didn't suggest this situation was at all comparable with the Third Reich - I was debating your use of the word, "totalitarian" which I consider absolutely sensationalist. 

After considering my language, I'll apologize for using hyperbole. But I certainly see that provision as "anti-democratic".

Thank you for clarifying your earlier remarks.

Nonetheless, I would disagree with that characterization - the decision was made by elected officials by a vote and upheld by the Assembly. The problem is not whether it is anti-democratic or not, but whether the system protects the individual and their rights against the tyranny of a majority - I think that that is obvious; any such cabinet decision is a solemn affair and not done lightly. Belschaft had to become an obvious, colossal security problem before The South Pacific would legitimately consider removing his citizenship.

He was attempting to blackmail officials and has a repeated history of misusing public office and rigging elections - with the exception of the latter (arguably) - none of these are a crime in The South Pacific, probably because Belschaft wrote most of our criminal code, such that it does more to protect him from "defamation" than it does the Coalition from corruption, blackmail, extortion and electioneering. So is Belschaft, a "criminal"? He's never been tried and I'm not sure how far a case would stand with him. Is he a security risk? Yes, incontrovertibly so.  He's hollowed out every democratic institution we have - time and time again - and to preserve our democracy, we need to protect ourselves from such security threats.