Post Archive
Region: Libertatem
Indeed. It's important to assume good faith in others... it's just hard for me to do that when I can't expect the same from them.
Teuberland
Yeah. But hey, people are quirky. I have leftist friends who I love to debate with because they treat me kindly. One is just as smart as I am, perhaps more so, and we have intelligent conversation without saying "oh you conservative/lefty prick." All boils down to the personality of an individual.
Rateria, Condealism
Speaking of the good fight progressives support, I came across a post on Facebook's page "Being Classically Liberal," retorting to a quote presumably used on leftist pages, saying the GOP opposes minimum wage increases because they fear it will work. It only proves the point that leftists generally think that things are good versus evil.
NEW MAP UPDATE
http://www.nationstates.net/nation=baxten/detail=factbook/id=488171
I think things are good versus evil just as they do.
The big difference is that I don't usually regard people as evil; instead, that's what I would classify statist policies as.
I have just been informed that the Bench will hear the case. If you are interested in serving as interim Peoples Attorney, thus arguing for the law to the Bench, let me know.
I'll do it unless someone more active volunteers. I support the WAR Act.
Austex
I get that, but most evil things are done with good intentions.
Take abortion. Morally I find it disgusting. Under Libertarian ethics it still is classified in my book as disgusting. (I do support it on the grounds that the mother is at risk.) However, abortion isn't done with malice necessarily. It's done because the expectant mother doesn't want to bear with the burden, or because of health issues that would harm the fetus, or because of others who would pay the cost of that child's birth. Are these good reasons? Not at all, but they are done with positive intention.
Another example: gay marriage.
I can totally get the good vs. evil attitude here, but at the end of the day, is it because the GOP has an agenda of simple hatred for no reason? No. They think it is sinful behavior in the eyes of their Lord, and they aren't trying to keep themselves from offense, but rather preserve morality for all. Is that a good reason? No, but it is also with positive intention.
Understanding any issue in this light is crucial to discussing it. Thus, for say gay marriage debates, don't fight the merits of homosexuality, because there will not be compromise on that so long as the individual at hand believes in the Word of God. Rather, make the argument more tolerable. Express to them that marriage under the state--straight or gay is not something the Bible recognizes--rather only the church itself would hold the power. Furthermore hit on that idea by expressing gay marriage and straight marriage as civil unions rather than holy matrimony.
Aaand I just went from good and evil to the marriage debate....I should get back to algebra.
Condealism
I know my calculus, it says u + me = us.
There's a big difference between those two issues:
Pro-choicers point to inconveniences in order to justify action tantamount to mass murder, and are a lot more prevalent among liberals than homophobes who point to a holy book of ethics in order to justify mere inconveniences are among conservatives.
First fact of the matter is that some conservatives simply aren't religious, and some who are aren't Christian. It's similarly possible that there aren't as many abortion advocates among liberals as they like to proclaim, which brings me to my second point:
Those who truly care about the Good Book know that it also says "Judge not lest ye be judged." Unlike the passages relevant to homosexuality, this isn't the least bit ambiguous. The message is loud and clear: condemning others for "having sinned" is only the business of one without sin, and I don't see any perfect people around here. Despite all assertions to the contrary, religion is not to blame for the distasteful, immoral conduct of the hypocrites who hide behind it. I can't say for certain whether anyone will "rot in hell", and it would be wrong of me to ruin their lives out of some warped sense of pride.
That goes for the hypocrites too. And the liberals. And everyone else I disagree with. And those I do agree with.
I can't hope to do much else to them than engaging in debate and raising awareness for my own point of view... at least, without having to repent for it. It is important to remember, though, that the golden mean is just a fallacy. There's no perfect balance of all political views; even radical centrism only gets that idea partly right. For all the shades of moral grey out there, it's important to remember that some ideas and actions are more good or evil than others.
I'm not here to advocate leaving equal judgment on all politicians, parties, factions, or movements, because they are not all equally beneficial, harmful, or guilty. I'm here to fight for what I believe, and what my perception of morality indicates, is right. I might get a few things wrong - everyone does - but I hope my resultant speeches and actions are at least half as pure as my highly idealistic intentions.
Sometimes there are good guys. I want to be one.
All the atheist conservatives I know are actually Objectivists.
Probably for the best, since conservatism seems to be more and more religious these days.
Rateria
Justice The New United States has recused himself from Humpheria v. Libertatem. If you are interested in sitting on a temporary capacity on the Bench for this case only, let me or RWN know. As I am the plaintiff in the case, I will not appoint the temporary Justice, my Vice President will do so.
I look forward to the Chief Justice's statement on a trial date once the appointment is made.
Because of the nature of this appointment, and after consulting with President Humpheria and with his approval, I appoint Pevvania to the Bench from the date of the beginning of the Humpheria v. Libertatem trial until the ruling is announced. With this temporary appointment, he is entitled to release the Majority Opinion or a Dissenting Opinion, but when the MO is announced, he will lose the privileges that are entailed to one that sits on the Bench. As this is only a temporary appointment, let it stand that his executive office is not of consequence.
Right-winged nation
Vice President of Libertatem
Miencraft, The New United States, Humpheria, Ankha, Rateria
Hello All! Im Ballorswag.
Techinically I am Ballarswag
I have many names and great reaches and so I have extended my reach out to this region now. I am the Founding parter on Genuan Rebirth, and have been around this site for a whileeeeeee. I have a 10 bliion+ current populous between my 2 main accounts (My first got banned from WA, so I transitioned to Ballarswag, still the same nation, just split my 4 years of time here between the 2 accounts.) I hope to become active in this region and make a name for myself in another region.
Again Hello Everyone!
Jk, Im ballurswag. Ill use my bigger nation for if we do RP or anything
Then I appoint you to the position of People's Attorney. Congratulations.
The New United States, Rateria, Condealism, Austex
Thank you. When does this case begin?
Up to the Chief Justice. I have recommended some time this weekend or beginning of next week.
I have also petitioned him to allow admittance of a "team" (Prosecution and Defense Team) that consists of an extra person allowed to be present in the proceedings but may not post or talk about anything, only communicate with their attorney with advice or questions. As this is an issue in the TBA, it would require a ruling from his office.
AG and PA, think about who you would admit to help you if he allows it.
Humpheria vs. Libertatem seems like it will be a very significant case.
Well, its the first. So, if nothing else, this is the first test of our judicial system.
The new system?
Yes the new one.
Understood, good to know.
Sounds interesting. How is everyone doing?
Very well, Ankha. How are you?
Fine.kinda tired. Been swamped this month. You?
Humpheria, Teuberland
Post self-deleted by Ankha.
What will it be about?
More questions:
1. Why is the region pursuing a war on Communism?
2. How long has the war lasted?
3. In what ways is this war being pursued? Is it a war of open debating, of the RP, or of tag and occupation raiding?
Communism is a threat to democracy, since the founding of the region, and all of the above
Austex
1. It is a founding principle that is an optional facet of involvement to our populace. Now it is mainly against The Red Fleet for prior agressions to us.
2. Since our region was founded.
3. Conversation about our military's operations is forbidden on the RMB. We attempt to debate our adversaries, but that usually results in us being banjected or insulted. They once came here and after lowering themselves into trolling and making sophomoric insults, most of them left.
Does this raiding target communist regions or regions occupied by communists against the will of the natives?
I'm for the latter, but ask yourself if natives of regions raided by DEN, TBR, and TBH look back and say "Wow those guys were cool!" They don't. They say "Wow, those guys were total dicks." Violence, even in the virtual world, will in no way promote capitalism.
As for RP wars, they step beyond the duties of the state, even Libertarian ones. The job of the state is to protect its own, and the money collected in taxes by the state should be used to protect the population that lies under the jurisdiction of the state. Causing war would put the safety of citizens, and if those citizens happen to be against the war, their values, on the line and violate them. It is hypocritical to the concept of Libertarianism that a state should do such a thing. Any citizens of the resident and citizen nations of Libertatem involved in wars on communism should be there at the defense of their nation or the defense of their values, not to support the values of the majority party of the state.
However, debate by the individual citizens of the resident and citizen nations of Libertatem is the path that ought to be pursued. Promoting thought, not emotion, and discussion, not violence, will be the truest and most successful path to successfully promoting capitalism over communism.
May I ask what the issue is with the Red Fleet?
And I'm not frankly surprised by insults. But as I said in the last post, emotional actions such as pretend violence or raiding will solve even less, and only strengthen their cause. Besides, their childish attempts make for good debating practice--something just about every individual on the face of the Earth could use.
But then again a lot of people on this website live below the face of the Earth in their parents' basements.
Morning, everyone.
Sorry I don't talk here more -- I know I should.
But you all seem to have things handled.
lolololol
Would you pay your high school bully your hard earned money for protection, only to be forced into your bully's fights instead?
Condealism
Basically government. But in its ideal form it would be more like hiring your own bodyguard. Otherwise it ends up suppressing individual rights and ends up like the bully.
What.
Acting childish isn't a good way to prepare for legitimate debate where you're expected to take everything and everyone seriously (or at least seriously enough to consider it).
Not that. I mean staying collected when others stoop to the floor.
Trust me friend, many here are skilled in the science of argumentation.
Rateria, Teuberland
I'm skilled in the science of snide remarks, that's for sure.
Miencraft, Humpheria, Rateria, Teuberland, Lain Iwakura
You're not one of them 'violence solves nothing' types are you? Diplomacy and sanctions aren't what stopped the spread of Nazi fascism.
Miencraft, Humpheria, Rateria, Condealism, Teuberland
Vermin Supreme disagrees. Free ponies for everyone!
Miencraft, Republic Of Minerva, Humpheria, Rateria
Anyone else get frustrates when you say you disagree with trump or carson and they call you a liberal?
Anyone else get frustrated when people say G. Wash was a good president or that T. Jeff wrote the Declaration of Independence?
Can someone tell me about Humpheria V. Libertatem? Something about the WAR Act?
Ha! I make liberals look conservative some days. But yes, but in my experience it tends to be people who have no idea what the f*ck they are talking about, or are backwards racist scum that support freedom as long as everyone is a middle class, protestant, heterosexual, living in the suburbs (holy sh*t I almost forgot white wow), so...it bothers me less.
That's a campaign I can get behind, screw Kanye for 2020, free ponies for 2020.
On an off note is it just me or is America really turning into the movie Idiocracy? Like really our presidential debates have turned into a reality tv show on MTV. Freedom is being trounced.
Miencraft, Rateria, Austex
What?! Washington was the greatest! He only trounced a rebellion fighting against unfair taxes from an uninvolved government miles away from the reality of the situat... wait, this seems familiar.
Oh manners, hello Libertatem
Touche.
Violence is an option, but it isn't preferable to me personally. Although it takes note that the co-official anthem of Nazi Germany honored a martyred party member, Horst Wessel. Generally violence against a movement strengthens its resolve. Another example would be John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry. It signaled collapsing north-south relations in the US and only intensified the oppressed minority feeling possessed by the south.
But still, touche. I don't quite have an argument to make against that statement. I will however say that the tendency of Nazis to piss off everyone else brought other fascists such as Brazil's Vargas against them and made other nations such as Spain and Portugal uncomfortable with their specific brand.
But to consider that in an online game environment, where politics is at the center, breaking out into virtual fisticuffs only makes your side seem oppressive and evil. Rather try to promote compromise in favor of our side bit by bit. Most people won't accept a line of thought straight away, but they will come to accept and may join us if we reach common ground in the same way one plants a crop. That's just my two cents on it.
That's cute.
It seems to me that there's enough people who believe in the whole "oh noes weer turnin into a idiacrazy" mindset to, well, form their very own idiocracy.
The truth is much less bleak: A lot of moderates simply don't care about politics and don't worry too much about who they're voting for if they're even voting at all. It's not idiotic at all... a bit naive, maybe, but ultimately a result of voter apathy rather than any genuine lack of intelligence.
Miencraft, Rateria
I'm inclined to side with you on this. A congressman was once beaten so badly in a slavery debate that he didn't return for several months, if I'm not mistaken. And one Vice President, Aaron Burr, killed Alexander Hamilton in a duel, and in 1807 was charged with treason and acquitted. Our country has seen worse men and women than Donald Trump.
Ooh which reminds me: add the Salem Witch Trials to that list. 24 people hung out of fear.
Rateria, Condealism
Humpy how many times do i have to tell you, Washington was a war hero not a great politician, and jefferson physically wrote the constitution, yes thomas paine may have contributed or influenced, but jefferson is the one that wrote it. Jesus dude let it go
I understand your position, but you have to acknowledge that we've been at this awhile and heard a lot of this before.
Fact of the matter is, we're the good guys. The War on Communism was itself devised in response to the destruction sown by leftist war machines and later grew to incorporate an opposition to fascism as well. Some opponents have attempted to bully us for daring to so much as speak out against them - refusing any attempt on our part at a peaceful solution that benefits all parties - and we have responded to their raids and invasions in kind out of necessity and for great justice.
We have succeeding in crippling our foes at multiple points and I believe we can do so again if they continue to wantonly disregard the liberty and sovereignty of non-combatants. We have succeeded in the rescue of a great many allies, the interruption of numerous authoritarian conquests, and the survival of our reputation in multiple scandals our enemies invented to besmirch our name.
And we don't go in guns blazing all the time, or destroying regions for no reason. We've learned, grown, and adapted over the years, but the one thing we have never done and will never do is give up.
We do not ape DEN or TR or TRF like you suggest we do. On the contrary, we hope to undo their every action if it is at all possible. Our goal is, as always, to roll back the terrible, cataclysmic influence of totalitarianism and keep NationStates safe for libertarianism without needlessly crossing moral boundaries to do so.
Miencraft, Rateria, Austex, Teuberland, Lain Iwakura
Oohkay. It is one thing to go raiding communist regions, but yeah, different if it's protecting other regions. (Sorry if that's read sarcastic, I'm agreeing with you.)
I suppose in a real life sense it's similar to the International Brigades of the Spanish Civil War--members of the fight are fighting against an oppressing party out of their own free will.
Rateria, Condealism
*succeeded
I hate this phone.
Anyway, yes, we also do the raiding thing - and received criticism for our war by proxy - but have done so to return fire against aggressors, whom we have weakened, while our allies have either survived and become stronger or fell and are forever immortalized as brave heroes who tried to resist the iron fist of despotism that did them in.
Rateria, Teuberland
As for Trump, he's America's impromptu entertainment. The machinations of the GOP have never been so interesting - the people have never had a greater reason to watch the debates or take in the political atmosphere.
This may, in fact, ultimately be a good thing.
Rateria, Greater Columbion, Teuberland
I still think the Republicans hired him to act as a missle defense shield against criticism from the liberal media towards the other candidates. And if they didn't, they should have because that would be pretty smart! Lol
Rateria, Condealism, Teuberland, Lain Iwakura
I'm not against it I suppose if it's counterattack. My argument against raiding is that it wrecks wonderful communities, but if it's such a circumstance I'm not really against it.
Maybe. I shudder at the idea seeing how much immaturity he brings to the field. However Sanders has the same effect on the left without coming across as a bully who thinks the unemployment rate is 42%.
Wasn't entirely shield proof. Carson rightfully earned criticism for his comments on Muslims. Though I heard his stance to describe the hypothetical Muslim candidate as possessing un-American values or something like that--in other words tolerant of the beliefs of others.
Rateria, Greater Columbion
I am suing the region to provide a judicial review of the WAR Act, that mandates (a word that libertarians should hate, period.) that the WAD (President) vote AGAINST all WA Resolutions and vote FOR all Repeals. I agree with this but I don't think it is the place of the government, especially through a simple majority bill, to tell anyone that they have to do something or resign. On an ideologically level, I am opposed to the law.
Rateria
Particular jobs come with particular mandated responsibilities. If the Deputy War Manager doesn't want to do what is required of him, then he should resign or be fired by the War Manager.
If you want to be the World Assembly Delegate, then you should know that you vote for not just yourself but the entire region, and the region should hold you to account for how you spend our votes. Never should Libertatem allow a WAD to willingly vote to usurp our national sovereignty. The General Assembly is just as much an enemy of liberty as the Red Fleet or Third Rome.
Condealism, Austex
Current Results (Live Updates):
Reporting: 25% (7/28)
1. Do you support the current judicial processes under the Third Branch Amendment?
Yes- 71% (5/7)
No- --
Undecided- 29% (2/7)
2. Do you support the tenure of the Chief Justice [nation=short]The Aradites[/nation]?
Yes- 71% (5/7)
No- --
Undecided- 29% (2/7)
3. Do you support the tenure of the Appellate Justice [nation=short]The New United States[/nation]?
Yes- 71% (5/7)
No- 14% (1/7)
Undecided- 14% (1/7)
4. Do you support the tenure of the Circuit Justice [nation=short]Miencraft[/nation]?
Yes- 86% (6/7)
No-
Undecided- 14% (1/7)
5. There is currently only one case in the judicial circuit, Humpheria v. Libertatem, which is a judicial review of the WAR Act. How do you stand in the trial?
Plaintiff- 43% (3/7)
Respondent- 0% (0/7)
No Opinion- 57% (4/7)
6. If you were involved in a situation that violated legality in some way, would you be comfortable going to the courts?
Yes- 86% (6/7)
No(1)-
No(2)-
Undecided- 17% (1/6)
7. How is your overall opinion of the Humpheria/Right-winged nation administration's judicial reform?
Favorable- 71% (5/7)
Unfavorable-
Neutral- 29% (2/7)
I will not lower myself into debating about the enemy. I agree that the WA is not favorable to our cause. But, our cause is liberty. If anyone would wish to deny it, there's plenty of ways out.
This is about liberty. Everyone's liberty is important, no matter what their title. The bedrock cause of our region is to champion individual liberty, surely you can't refute that. This authoritarian bill is well intentioned, true. Shakespeare said "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." The intent is different than the result. For example:
The Intent- To protest the WA
The Result- The liberties of the individual that holds the presidency being bastardized by a mob with good intentions
Regardless of the status of the bill, I will still probably vote against resolutions and for repeals but the fact that a well-intentioned mandate exists is what has caused me to seek legal action.
Miencraft, Rateria
Most positions of responsibility have madates of some sort, and to argue against a mandate, just because it's a mandate, is preposterous - especially given that it's one that simply forces the WA Delegate to spend regional resources in a manner that protects the region.
The WA Delegate does not have the right to spend all of our regional votes however he sees fit, and it's perfectly reasonable to compel an official to use regional resources according to the will of the region.
Condealism
Humpheria's Quote of the Day:
All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent. ~ Edmund Burke
I believe that existence of tyranny must be constantly sought, rooted out, and extinguished. Tyranny in any form, even well-intentioned. The people can be confident that in the absence of the current law in place, I would still vote how the law dictates. I only argue that the existence of the law is an affront to the liberty of myself, and whomever will hold this office in the future. I urge the people of Libertatem to stand against tyranny, even in this minute form of existence, as we all know that in this form it does exist.
We all can believe that tyranny must be our arch-nemesis, it is the natural enemy of a liberty and a fiend of nature. The WAR Act, regardless of intent, has proven to be tyrannous to at least one, which in a liberty-minded society is one too many. I urge the court to repeal this law, in the interest of the people of this region.
Rateria
Yeah, those darn tyrants. Trying to force their elected representatives not to vote for bills that require national governments to balloon into bureaucracy-choked nightmares.
"I would still vote how the law dictates"
Evidently not, given you just voted against repealing a piece of legislation that mandates that we all create entirely new government offices, without the consent of the governed.
Condealism
I misunderstood the law, thinking that it was the opposite, on top of forgetting the existence of WAR. It is very easy to forget the multitude of small laws that you push through on topical issues.
I am immensely overjoyed to see the honorable gentleman choosing to prove his point not through facts or ideologically analysis, but snide remarks and sophomoric sarcasm. My apologies, I must have misunderstood what this was, I won't try to have a serious debate again.
There are many things in life I don't understand. How Trump is doing so well, women, calculus. But if there is one thing that perplexes me more than anything on this earth is how you can claim to fight for liberty with tyranny. I think we can all appreciate how you, a libertarian, are using the word mandate so freely.
<3
Keep in mind, that that's only with 25% reporting. If more respond your percentage will likely go up, Justice.
The New United States
Post self-deleted by The New United States.
I made one sarcastic statement, and it was simply to illustrate your illogic.
You have yet to refute any points I've made, resorting solely to stale rhetoric, like arguing that it's tyrannical for the region to dictate how the region's votes are spent, rather than spent at the whim of a single individual.
If you're willing to have a real debate, then lets do this.
Do you believe that, put in simple terms, tyranny is bad?
Being a civil servant requires sacrifice. Sacrificing your opinion on WA votes is part of the duties of the office. It's not contradictory at all, everyone has their inalienable rights, but when you choose to take on the office, you accept the duties. Attempting to force all WA members to vote in this manner would be a mandate, and would be tyrannical.
The New United States, Condealism
In just waiting for Mhomens opinion on the matter, tbh.
The New United States, Humpheria, Rateria, Condealism, The Aradites, Lain Iwakura
Post self-deleted by Humpheria.
The issue with this logic is that our region is very anti-WA. As such, most of us aren't very interested in it. Those that have WA status either do it for military purposes or to hold office. Most of the time, none of our people even vote save for those passionately against it. It is important to remember what this is about. It's fine to debate substance here, but the ruling is only regarding the constitution and existing law code. I believe that, on matters pertaining to this, the constitution is very clear.
Article VII
Subsection V
All nations are entitled to the liberties that can be provided. Liberty shall not be infringed upon without probable cause and legal justification.
Subsection VI
All the powers not designated to the Regional Government, belong to the nations respectively.
I took an oath to defend the Constitution. I, nor any other official, are beholden to the World Assembly and the World Assembly should not be the central focus of our region. It does not effect my daily life, and it never has. There should be no reason it becomes the dissolution of an administration in an anti-WA region.
Alas, he hasn't been active for 18 days.
He will arise again
Surely, for what would we do without him?
Rateria
Thank you for your opinions, but I've heard enough from both of you. I would prefer we resolve this matter in court rather than engaging in vitriol and bickering.
Might I remind you, Mr. President, that ignorance of the law does not excuse you of your responsibility to follow it. While I'm sure it was an accident, you were in violation of the WAR Act and could be taken to court at the behest of any of our citizens - which itself wouldn't be a bad way to test our new system. If you seek to lobby against this law, I suggest you prepare a logical case and rebuttal as to its necessity (or lack thereof, as you aim to prove).
These emotional appeals are pointless, and hardly relevant to the case, if at all. Justice is administered based on evidence, not as a result of a popularity contest.
And I think I'll leave it at that.
Miencraft, The New United States, Humpheria, Rateria, Austex
I appreciate the assumption that I don't understand that concept.
If you recall, the WAR Act dictates that the WAD vote FOR all repeals, at the time that the voting will conclude, my vote will be lodged as 'FOR'. By the law, there was no violation as it was changed and no case would exist.
Further, I don't appreciate the threat.
Condealism
How many constitutional questions have been raised by the respondent?
Exactly how many legal statutes have they quoted?
What evidence, exactly, has been presented in favor of the law?
I think that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what exactly you are attempting to end.
I have no misconception, despite the previous insult to my intelligence, as to what exactly is being argued about. Both I and my opponent know that this is not the Court of law. We are simply having a debate about a current event, not making a case before the Bench. Though the attempt to establish superiority with the "holier-than-thou" appeal was simply a rhetorical execution, it is fundamentally incorrect.
Do you deny that TNUS and I are allowed to debate an event that is relevant to the region?
Miencraft, Rateria
What is the specific legal basis for this case?
The concept of liberty is being violated by this law that mandates whomever holds the office of President, and in turn (due to game mechanics) the WA Delegate, vote a certain way in the WA. I'm saying that this violates the Constitution (Art. VII Sec. 1, Sub. 1, 5, and 6) and the bedrock foundation of our government.
This will be a very interesting case.
Humpheria
Well, it is important to note that these are just opinions. The case will be argued behind closed-doors and we will not be able to see it until after the ruling is made.
But, I think it is an important issue. To me, it wouldn't be the end of the world if the law was sustained. I just think that this is an important stand to make, as we should oppose any mandate in any form.
The case will be held privately, I understand.
Mr. President, I agree that this is an important issue.
Humpheria, Condealism
I would like to politely decline your unusual request to engage me in debate. This is a matter, as I've said, I would prefer to see put to rest during the trial rather than before.
Do as you will, Mr. President. I obviously can't stop you from arguing with your constituents or from berating your supporters, if that is what you so choose. I'm sure this will have no effect on morale or public confidence whatsoever.
Rather, would "trial" be an appropriate term for Humpheria v Libertatem? Well, no matter.
Me? I had no intention to debate with you.
No, me.
He misunderstood my defense against his condescending insults and comments as a challenge to debate.
Ah, my bad.
I do feel the need to apologize to The New United States and Condealism for my more inflammatory rhetoric towards the end of the debate that went into argument. Normally I am against fiery debate, but with the addition of a long week running on in RL and the sarcasm and threats of legal action, I lost my cool.
I'm not changing my stances or retracting the substance my argument, but I am apologizing for the ad homs and passive aggressive sassiness.
Miencraft, Rateria, Condealism
It was not my intention to offend you, and for that, I sincerely apologize.
What concerns me is that the discussion of this case - while far from unwelcome - is getting to be rather heated, or at least somewhat polarizing. I would appreciate it if we were all able to keep cool heads and if those involved in the case would be ready to do their jobs when it begins.
Besides, screaming about tyranny and other such examples of rhetoric is my field of expertise, and I did have to tone down on that during my time as President for reasons I hope are obvious. I'll handle the sanctimonious, moralistic chatter if it's quite alright with all of you; what matters is that, very soon, we shall have the opportunity to test our new judiciary, and that is very good news indeed.
Miencraft, Humpheria, Rateria, Austex
Oh, and that's quite alright. While I would like to point out that the correction of the crime is not necessarily an absolution - consider having stolen and returned something, for instance - I am not advocating impeachment, especially over such a minor and unintended breach of conduct. (I'm almost certain I've done worse.)
My point was that no one is above the law, and the previous argument sounded like a dismissal of that principle to me.
17 hours ago: Following new legislation in [nation=short]Miencraft[/nation], the nation leads Libertatem in per capita stalking.
I applaud you, sir! Truly remarkable.
Rateria, Teuberland
Remarkable, what an example for us all.
Rateria
I don't even know why.
I don't remember what I do.
Teuberland
Assembled with Dot's Region Saver.
Written by Refuge Isle.