Post Archive

Region: Libertatem

History

I never knew except for Min and Serb

Ankha wrote:And with the current jury status I would be not guilty anyway.

Nah. If one more person voted guilty it would be a mistrial. You assume they both would've went NG.

Humpherian Diplomat wrote:Nah. If one more person voted guilty it would be a mistrial. You assume they both would've went NG.

First floor said NG then min said guilty then serb said nothing. And muh said he accepts 5-1

Ankha wrote:First floor said NG then min said guilty then serb said nothing. And muh said he accepts 5-1

That makes no sense. Like I literally do not understand what you were trying to say in the first sentence.

Humpherian Diplomat wrote:That makes no sense. Like I literally do not understand what you were trying to say in the first sentence.

First four. as in the first four jurors to vote (any juror who is not min or Serb.) then min voted guilty. Serb didn't vote. We're at 4-1

"An"coms are the biggest hypocrites out there. They talk about how ancaps "aren't real anarchists" and that they are "the only true anarchists", then they complain when the government cuts spending. They also seem to think that a government through majority rule/democratic tyranny isn't a state.

Austex

Ankha wrote:First four. as in the first four jurors to vote (any juror who is not min or Serb.) then min voted guilty. Serb didn't vote. We're at 4-1

3-NG. Hallo voted G. Min and Serb did not vote. If Min voted, I was not informed and that would put it at 3-2-1.

I was extrapolating. Muh said 4 voted NG 1 G. That's it.

Ankha wrote:I was extrapolating. Muh said 4 voted NG 1 G. That's it.

Unless there was a PM, I only heard about 3 NG, 1 G.

Humpherian Diplomat wrote:Staph. I wanna go to Heaven.

I'll take you to heaven baby.

Sorry I had made a mistake when I TGed you Ankha, Humpy is right... 3 NG, 2 didn't vote, 1 Guilty.

I received 1 vote from through a private telegram.. not at liberty to say which.. but this voting thing kind of defeats the purpose of a jury anyhow.

Muh Roads wrote:I received 1 vote from through a private telegram.. not at liberty to say which.. but this voting thing kind of defeats the purpose of a jury anyhow.

Oh

and ya.

Humpherian Diplomat wrote:3-NG. Hallo voted G. Min and Serb did not vote. If Min voted, I was not informed and that would put it at 3-2-1.

Ugggh. This is not how it's supposed to work. The verdict is supposed to be unanimous and made in secret. This is a mockery of a jury.

Pevvania wrote:Ugggh. This is not how it's supposed to work. The verdict is supposed to be unanimous and made in secret. This is a mockery of a jury.

Aww. Poor Pev. We're making a mockery of a trial that is already closed. would you like a tissue?

Pevvania wrote:Ugggh. This is not how it's supposed to work. The verdict is supposed to be unanimous and made in secret. This is a mockery of a jury.

Muh Roads wrote:I received 1 vote from through a private telegram.. not at liberty to say which.. but this voting thing kind of defeats the purpose of a jury anyhow.
=P

Humpherian Diplomat wrote:Aww. Poor Pev. We're making a mockery of a trial that is already closed. would you like a tissue?

No, it's not closed. Please refer to the COURT Act:

Section III

The jury must remain silent concerning the case in its duration, and no juror shall offer no opinions in relation to it while they are serving.

Once the closing statements have been presented, the jury shall then deliberate in private and consider the arguments in deciding whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty.

[B]A unanimous result must be achieved, but the judge may accept a 5-1 ruling otherwise.[/B]

If the jury doesn't get its act together soon, I may motion a vote to declare this a mistrial. I share part of the blame for this, of course, for picking two inactive jurors. But do the jurors and the legal teams for not following the law.

This region is not a democracy. It is a republic guided by the principle of the rule of law. If 2 nations vote to kill the other, that does not wash in this region. If we want a strong judicial system, we have to do this by the book.

Pevvania wrote:This region is not a democracy. It is a republic guided by the principle of the rule of law. If 2 nations vote to kill the other, that does not wash in this region. If we want a strong judicial system, we have to do this by the book.

Can we get an angry voice sample?

Pevvania wrote:No, it's not closed. Please refer to the COURT Act:

Section III

The jury must remain silent concerning the case in its duration, and no juror shall offer no opinions in relation to it while they are serving.

Once the closing statements have been presented, the jury shall then deliberate in private and consider the arguments in deciding whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty.

[B]A unanimous result must be achieved, but the judge may accept a 5-1 ruling otherwise.[/B]

If the jury doesn't get its act together soon, I may motion a vote to declare this a mistrial. I share part of the blame for this, of course, for picking two inactive jurors. But do the jurors and the legal teams for not following the law.

You're late Pev. The Judge Muh Roads issued a parameter that the Jury must reach at least a 5-1 decision by 8AM (EST) this morning or he would declare a mistrial on account of Hung Jury.

Literally exactly what you just said should happen. The trial ended 5 hours ago and it was done by your standards. Just because you weren't paying attention and jumped to conclusions isn't our fault.

Ankha wrote:Can we get an angry voice sample?

Bahahaha. To vocarooooooo!

Pevvania wrote:Ugggh. This is not how it's supposed to work. The verdict is supposed to be unanimous and made in secret. This is a mockery of a jury.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjFA8C0o6T4

I love how he tried to school the Attorney General on the law. I wrote most of the laws that we have. The ones that I didn't I helped. Sheesh.

I see that everybody is getting a little bit touchy about this trial. We should just consider that it's over and close the case.

Yrellian Confederacy wrote:I see that everybody is getting a little bit touchy about this trial. We should just consider that it's over and close the case.

It is over.

Humpheria wrote:You're late Pev. The Judge Muh Roads issued a parameter that the Jury must reach at least a 5-1 decision by 8AM (EST) this morning or he would declare a mistrial on account of Hung Jury.

Literally exactly what you just said should happen. The trial ended 5 hours ago and it was done by your standards. Just because you weren't paying attention and jumped to conclusions isn't our fault.

Then why did you post the "vote count" of the jury? Are you saying that five jury members voted not guilty and one did not vote?

Humpheria wrote:I love how he tried to school the Attorney General on the law.

Being the AG does not make you an expert on the law. It just means you legally represent the Libertatem government.

Humpheria wrote:I wrote most of the laws that we have.

No, you didn't.

Effective Laws

POLICY Act - Liberosia

VETO Act - Pev

ARMA Act - Muh Roads

GMA Act - Minerva

APPEAL Act - Muh Roads

Comm. Deregulation Act - Pev

FRAUD Act - Humpheria

EDIT Act - Pev

WAR Act - TNUS

HOLIDAY Act - CI

COURT Act - Pev

Amendments to the Constitution

1 - CI

2 - CI

3 - Pev

4 - Pev

5 - Pev

6 - Pev

7 - Humpheria

8 - Humpheria

9 - Pev

10 - Pev

11 - Pev

12 - Pev

13 - Lack There Of

Lib: 1

Pev: 12

Humpheria: 3

CI: 3

Muh Roads: 2

Minerva: 1

TNUS: 1

You have written 3 laws that have not been struck down or repealed. I have written 12. So clearly, your claim is false.

Humpheria wrote:I love how he tried to school the Attorney General on the law. I wrote most of the laws that we have. The ones that I didn't I helped. Sheesh.

I commend you for your Christ-like humility.

Pevvania wrote:Then why did you post the "vote count" of the jury? Are you saying that five jury members voted not guilty and one did not vote?

Because it was over. Muh Roads (the Judge) issued a mistrial. 3 voted Not Guilty. 1 vote Guilty. 2 did not vote.

Pevvania wrote:Being the AG does not make you an expert on the law. It just means you legally represent the Libertatem government.

You have to be an expert on laws to be the AG. The AG also maintains legislative constitutionality.

Pevvania wrote:You have written 3 laws that have not been struck down or repealed. I have written 12. So clearly, your claim is false.

There's been more than that written by a variety of people (not just me) that aren't in that factbook. Either way, my job doesn't change.

The New United States wrote:I commend you for your Christ-like humility.

Humility has always been one of my shining qualities. Along with sarcasm and facety.

This is why you should vote for my flag.

First of all, it's simple. Despite what Pevvania says, complex flags are generally bad. Flags, should have no more than three or four colors, first of all, and should have a relatively good contrast. Take a look at British Columbia or Maryland's flag, both are extremely gaudy flags that are not pleasing to the eye. Now compare this with France, Ukraine, or even the Congo's flag.

Inspiration is rather drawn to not what you put on it, but what symbolism you derive from it. The blue in my flag is a homage to the blue of the old flags, which I call "Libertatem blue." The gold is traditionally both the color of libertarianism, which is a dominant force in our region, as well as the Gadsden flag which nicely symbolizes the region's defensive and retributive standard in relation to our allies and enemies respectively. The Gadsden flag can also be interpreted as an implication of the NAP (which doesn't really hold sway on a video game but regardless). The diamond, a homage to our Brazilian allies and is a symbol of wealth. The diamond also represents life, night and day, and other things.

http://www.nava.org/flag-design/good-flag-bad-flag/5-basic-principles-flag-design

http://www.whats-your-sign.com/diamond-symbol-meaning.html

Yrellian Confederacy, Austex

Republic Of Minerva wrote:This is why you should vote for my flag.

First of all, it's simple. Despite what Pevvania says, complex flags are generally bad. Flags, should have no more than three or four colors, first of all, and should have a relatively good contrast. Take a look at British Columbia or Maryland's flag, both are extremely gaudy flags that are not pleasing to the eye. Now compare this with France, Ukraine, or even the Congo's flag.

Inspiration is rather drawn to not what you put on it, but what symbolism you derive from it. The blue in my flag is a homage to the blue of the old flags, which I call "Libertatem blue." The gold is traditionally both the color of libertarianism, which is a dominant force in our region, as well as the Gadsden flag which nicely symbolizes the region's defensive and retributive standard in relation to our allies and enemies respectively. The Gadsden flag can also be interpreted as an implication of the NAP (which doesn't really hold sway on a video game but regardless). The diamond, a homage to our Brazilian allies and is a symbol of wealth. The diamond also represents life, night and day, and other things.

http://www.nava.org/flag-design/good-flag-bad-flag/5-basic-principles-flag-design

http://www.whats-your-sign.com/diamond-symbol-meaning.html

Or, ya know, we can just stick with this flag that embodies our region.

Humpheria wrote:Or, ya know, we can just stick with this flag that embodies our region.

Still believe that we should be using a universal statist symbol to represent us eh?

http://static.topyaps.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/No_smoking_comrade.jpg

Republic Of Minerva wrote:Still believe that we should be using a universal statist symbol to represent us eh?

http://static.topyaps.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/No_smoking_comrade.jpg

No, we should be using an explicitly anti-statist symbol, which is exactly what we have now.

The New United States wrote:No, we should be using an explicitly anti-statist symbol, which is exactly what we have now.

It's a crappy symbol, sorry.

Yrellian Confederacy

Humpheria wrote:Because it was over. Muh Roads (the Judge) issued a mistrial. 3 voted Not Guilty. 1 vote Guilty. 2 did not vote.

So a new trial must be held, then?

Humpheria wrote:There's been more than that written by a variety of people (not just me) that aren't in that factbook. Either way, my job doesn't change.

Please direct me to these laws so that I can put them in the factbook, then.

Pevvania wrote:So a new trial must be held, then?

Please direct me to these laws so that I can put them in the factbook, then.

No, because the Prosecution will not be seeking a retrial.

Humpheria wrote:No, because the Prosecution will not be seeking a retrial.

I see. You could have just said this before.

Pevvania wrote:I see. You could have just said this before.

I did.

Humpherian Diplomat wrote:Legally, the Judge's parameters have passed so the trial is a mistrial. Meaning that Ankha has not been found not guilty, just nothing. However, in the interest of time, we will not seek a retrial.

Humpheria wrote:I did.

I apologise, then. I should have read the whole RMB.

Chairman's Statement

The Board has voted unanimously in favour of repealing President Condealism's executive order on the regional flag. It is the opinion of the Board, and this Chairman, that an issue as contentious as the regional flag should be decided by the people, not by executive fiat. Personally, I am open to the possibility of a flag change, as long as it incorporated the theme of anti-Bolshevism alongside something invoking libertarianism. But unfortunately, most flags proposed so far have been either of a poor quality or openly pandering to the interests of foreign powers. I am sure that the region can settle this issue in due time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sl9voSKJmEU

Thoughts?

Humpheria wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sl9voSKJmEU

Thoughts?

Not into reggae, but I like this. A crisp, clean sound, yet relatively original lyrics and a good beat.

Pevvania wrote:Not into reggae, but I like this. A crisp, clean sound, yet relatively original lyrics and a good beat.

Same. I've never been into reggae, but I really like the lyrics and message.

Anybody here have an opinion on Boris Johnson? His political views are very vague, and unknown to most people. But he's one of the few mainstream politicians that talks about libertarianism, and he's indicated that he has libertarian leanings. If he's for gun rights, then I may even vote for him if he ever runs for PM.

Pevvania wrote:Anybody here have an opinion on Boris Johnson? His political views are very vague, and unknown to most people. But he's one of the few mainstream politicians that talks about libertarianism, and he's indicated that he has libertarian leanings. If he's for gun rights, then I may even vote for him if he ever runs for PM.

I'm in love with him. His love for Thatcher, his unpopular opposition to the limitation of the bankers' bonuses, his humor, his attitude. If I was a woman I would marry him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oz5G93BfSUI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBmaCF3q7IM

Plus he is British and a tory and I find both very sexy.

Yrellian Confederacy wrote:Plus he is British and a tory and I find both very sexy.

Yrellian....

I like your flag proposal [nation=short]republic of minerva[/nation]. I've modified it a bit, any thoughts?

Yrellian Confederacy wrote:I'm in love with him. His love for Thatcher, his unpopular opposition to the limitation of the bankers' bonuses, his humor, his attitude. If I was a woman I would marry him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oz5G93BfSUI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBmaCF3q7IM

What a guy. Any good politicians in Switzerland?

Aside from his support for the FairTax and the Second Amendment, Mike Gravel is a fake libertarian. He supports nationalising campaign finance, "Net Neutrality", the welfare state and socialised medicine. His call for a voucher program is just a poor attempt at honey-potting libertarians, since he still wants to nationalise healthcare as a not-for-profit government service.

The thing that I hate most are uninformed debaters. I debate and there is nothing worse than someone who doesn't know what they're talking about.

I don't talk about the vaccine question because I have no idea what it even is.

Same with Net Neutrality.

Humpheria wrote:The thing that I hate most are uninformed debaters. I debate and there is nothing worse than someone who doesn't know what they're talking about.

I don't talk about the vaccine question because I have no idea what it even is.

Same with Net Neutrality.

Mandatory vaccinations and making the Internet a government free zone, essentially.

Muh Roads wrote:Mandatory vaccinations and making the Internet a government free zone, essentially.

Isn't the vaccination question more "but muh children's safety!".

Which is stupid anyways because all the evidence shows that vaccines don't do anything bad.

Unless you're allergic to one of the ingredients, which is rare and pretty strange.

Pevvania wrote:What a guy. Any good politicians in Switzerland?

Yes, good by their results and way of management. Swiss politicians are serious and austere, politic in Switzerland is not a show, and most of their politicians have absolutely no charisma. That's why you can find the swiss political life very boring. But the country is still very well managed, and this is the most important thing after all.

The most interesting politician will probably be Christoph Blocher. He appeared when Switzerland was just about to adhere to the EU, and he managed to turn the majority of the population against it, despite his total loneliness.

After that he created a populist right-wing party gathering 1/4 of the votes. His ideas about the EU and the way he defended it brought huge modifications in the political life, as the socialist party is now the only party to support an EU adhesion, and according to a recent poll more than 90% of the Swiss agree with him on the EU matters.

He's also a billionaire and a strong advocate of the banking secrecy. So yeah, very interesting man.

Miencraft wrote:Isn't the vaccination question more "but muh children's safety!".

Which is stupid anyways because all the evidence shows that vaccines don't do anything bad.

Unless you're allergic to one of the ingredients, which is rare and pretty strange.

I have several acquaintances who oppose mandatory vaccinations on the grounds that parents should have the final say in all matters related to their children (they also suspect the government of doing shady things under the pretense of vaccinations, which may sound cookoo, yet government doesn't have a great track record: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/41811750/ns/health-health_care/t/ugly-past-us-human-experiments-uncovered/).

On the flip side, debilitating diseases are something that can affect anyone in society. If we can prevent most, or even eliminate entirely, the risk of these diseases infecting the population, shouldn't we do so? As most vaccines, if any, cannot be administered immediately upon birth, the potential for newborns to be infected prior to immunization exists if there are people who chose not to be vaccinated (or rather, whose parents chose not to have them vaccinated).

Yes Mien, that too.

I am opposed to mandatory vaccines. If a parent want the risk of their children getting some horrible disease that's on them

Pevvania wrote:Aside from his support for the FairTax and the Second Amendment, Mike Gravel is a fake libertarian. He supports nationalising campaign finance, "Net Neutrality", the welfare state and socialised medicine. His call for a voucher program is just a poor attempt at honey-potting libertarians, since he still wants to nationalise healthcare as a not-for-profit government service.

I'd pick Mike Gravel over Rand - you know the guy that wants to limit abortion, limit gay marriage via a state's rights copout, make illegal immigrant children foreigners in the country that they were born in, and continues to support wanking in the middle east. Oh, and let's not forget voting against legislation to limit the police state because "it doesn't go far enough." Lel

Mike Gravel is a Jeffersonian libertarian. Rand Paul is a palecon.

Muh Roads wrote:If a parent want the risk of their children getting some horrible disease that's on them

I agree with this sentiment. However, this can affect more than just their kids as anyone is susceptible prior to immunization. So what happens when my newborn, who isn't old enough for a given vaccine, gets infected because of someone else's decision to not vaccinate?

Muh Roads wrote:Yes Mien, that too.

I am opposed to mandatory vaccines. If a parent want the risk of their children getting some horrible disease that's on them

The existence of a child without a vaccine makes him a public health hazard. It is far better to vaccinate him, if not mandatory than at least a small stipend for doing so, unless you enjoy seeing diseases that we've eliminated return.

Austex wrote:I like your flag proposal [nation=short]republic of minerva[/nation]. I've modified it a bit, any thoughts?

I wouldn't use that for the regional flag, but it looks good on you.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:The existence of a child without a vaccine makes him a public health hazard. It is far better to vaccinate him, if not mandatory than at least a small stipend for doing so, unless you enjoy seeing diseases that we've eliminated return.

I wouldn't use that for the regional flag, but it looks good on you.

So it's fine to murder a child in cold blood though abortion, but God forbid he doesn't have a dead strain of a deadly disease injected into his bloodstream. Right?

Austex wrote:I have several acquaintances who oppose mandatory vaccinations on the grounds that parents should have the final say in all matters related to their children (they also suspect the government of doing shady things under the pretense of vaccinations, which may sound cookoo, yet government doesn't have a great track record: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/41811750/ns/health-health_care/t/ugly-past-us-human-experiments-uncovered/).

On the flip side, debilitating diseases are something that can affect anyone in society. If we can prevent most, or even eliminate entirely, the risk of these diseases infecting the population, shouldn't we do so? As most vaccines, if any, cannot be administered immediately upon birth, the potential for newborns to be infected prior to immunization exists if there are people who chose not to be vaccinated (or rather, whose parents chose not to have them vaccinated).

I'm not talking about mandatory vaccinations, just vaccinations in general.

But, for all intents and purposes, I stand neutral on mandatory vaccines, since we're talking about them now.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:The existence of a child without a vaccine makes him a public health hazard. It is far better to vaccinate him, if not mandatory than at least a small stipend for doing so, unless you enjoy seeing diseases that we've eliminated return.

Pretty much because of this; vaccines don't work 100% of the time, immunodeficiency is a thing, etc. I'm not sure what other options there are, but I suppose I wouldn't be too strongly opposed to a mandate on vaccines, if only because it's common sense that vaccines are good for you (though I suppose if it were there wouldn't be a discussion on mandating them).

Also, fun fact: vaccines used to have trace amounts of mercury in them, but this amount was far less than what you can find in fish or CFL bulbs.

But, just to clarify, mandating vaccines is not a thing we should do. I don't want to see it done, but if it does happen, meh.

Unrelated, the radio hasn't been changed in ages.

Humpheria wrote:So it's fine to murder a child in cold blood though abortion, but God forbid he doesn't have a dead strain of a deadly disease injected into his bloodstream. Right?

Lmao, you can't murder a fetus. Murder is a legal term.

It makes more sense to prevent a huge number of expensive court cases (paid by the taxpayer of course) with a single mandatory vaccine. It would ironically contravene the NAP less. At the very least, a financial incentive might work just as well, and cost the state less.

Miencraft wrote:Unrelated, the radio hasn't been changed in ages.

Since you guys like reggae, here's a suggestion:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klcoDwaL7t8

Republic Of Minerva wrote:Since you guys like reggae, here's a suggestion:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klcoDwaL7t8

No reggae, how about some Bob Dylan?

Right-Winged Nation wrote:No reggae, how about some Bob Dylan?

How about some 10 hours of Windows Error Remix?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJbTjBLEKBU

Republic Of Minerva wrote:Lmao, you can't murder a fetus. Murder is a legal term.

It makes more sense to prevent a huge number of expensive court cases (paid by the taxpayer of course) with a single mandatory vaccine. It would ironically contravene the NAP less. At the very least, a financial incentive might work just as well, and cost the state less.

So Minerva, one of the most anti-state people I know, just told me that the answer to everything is a government provided, implemented, and enforced vaccine on every child. To keep costs down. Because vaccines are free and the people that are arrested for refusing are just going to enjoy a free stay in federal prison?

Humpheria wrote:So Minerva, one of the most anti-state people I know, just told me that the answer to everything is a government provided, implemented, and enforced vaccine on every child. To keep costs down. Because vaccines are free and the people that are arrested for refusing are just going to enjoy a free stay in federal prison?

If it decreases the amount of idiots who find themselves in jail for infecting people with influenza? Yes

I'm a minarchist, ergo I am not anti-state. Anti-government certainly.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:If it decreases the amount of idiots who find themselves in jail for infecting people with influenza? Yes

Bad joke time!

You know what else reduces the amount of idiots?

Not getting vaccinated.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:If it decreases the amount of idiots who find themselves in jail for infecting people with influenza? Yes

I'm a minarchist, ergo I am not anti-state. Anti-government certainly.

So taxpayers pay for this I assume?

Miencraft wrote:Bad joke time!

You know what else reduces the amount of idiots?

Not getting vaccinated.

Darwin would be proud.

Right-Winged Nation wrote:So taxpayers pay for this I assume?

Yes, albeit less than they would without any "controls."

Again, if we could get away with a small financial incentive (best would be a tax cut), that could work as well.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:Darwin would be proud.

Yes, albeit less than they would without any "controls."

Again, if we could get away with a small financial incentive (best would be a tax cut), that could work as well.

I still don't like the idea of having to pay for someone to get vaccinations

Republic Of Minerva wrote:Since you guys like reggae, here's a suggestion:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klcoDwaL7t8

Another thing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BROWqjuTM0g

The Neo-Confederate States Of America wrote:Another thing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BROWqjuTM0g

Uh, no

Post self-deleted by Miencraft.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:The existence of a child without a vaccine makes him a public health hazard. It is far better to vaccinate him, if not mandatory than at least a small stipend for doing so, unless you enjoy seeing diseases that we've eliminated return.

I wouldn't use that for the regional flag, but it looks good on you.

That stipend you speak of is not getting polio. Let the stupid anti-vaccers die.

Muh Roads wrote:That stipend you speak of is not getting polio. Let the stupid anti-vaccers die.

that doesn't work though. like he just said they're a public health hazard and more than just they themselves/their kids will die because of it.

Humpheria wrote:So Minerva, one of the most anti-state people I know, just told me that the answer to everything is a government provided, implemented, and enforced vaccine on every child. To keep costs down. Because vaccines are free and the people that are arrested for refusing are just going to enjoy a free stay in federal prison?

the obvious answer is to abolish the state then let private companies make life a living hell for people that don't get them *nods*

Miencraft wrote:Unrelated, the radio hasn't been changed in ages.

I submitted a request for this a few days ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0NaEZLUT8A

Pevvania wrote:Chairman's Statement

The Board has voted unanimously in favour of repealing President Condealism's executive order on the regional flag. It is the opinion of the Board, and this Chairman, that an issue as contentious as the regional flag should be decided by the people, not by executive fiat. Personally, I am open to the possibility of a flag change, as long as it incorporated the theme of anti-Bolshevism alongside something invoking libertarianism. But unfortunately, most flags proposed so far have been either of a poor quality or openly pandering to the interests of foreign powers. I am sure that the region can settle this issue in due time.

Okay. Now what?

In case you haven't realized this by now, we now have no legal precedent for the management of the flag and the WFE, and authority over them has not been granted to any branch, section, or position of government. In order to change this, we'll need a Constitutional amendment that affirms the founder - and President - has lost this power, and been given to someone else. Or, you know, you could call a recount.

I trust, of course, that you have planned for this eventuality and are already working on it?

Seriously guys, 94 new posts in the time I was offline. :{)

Gradea wrote:Seriously guys, 94 new posts in the time I was offline. :{)

I'll admit, that's impressive

Gradea wrote:Seriously guys, 94 new posts in the time I was offline. :{)

We had to balance out the fact that a couple days ago you posted 94% of the messages....

Gradea

Ankha wrote:We had to balance out the fact that a couple days ago you posted 94% of the messages....

I did?

The Neo-Confederate States Of America wrote:I rick rolled Libertatem.

(One of) Pev's last act(s) as President was to change the radio to that, though not the 10-hour version.

So you were kind of beaten to it.

Conservative Christian States Of America wrote:Can I found my own party?

Indeed you can, citizen. The party system is privatized, so there aren't any government restrictions on founding one.

Conservative Idealism In Libertatem wrote:Indeed you can, citizen. The party system is privatized, so there aren't any government restrictions on founding one.

Alright, then I'll create...the Conservative Christian Party (CCP)

Got to go. Been offered a government position in our promising region of 30 nations.

Gradea wrote:Got to go. Been offered a government position in our promising region of 30 nations.

Ok Bye

Republic Of Minerva wrote:I'd pick Mike Gravel over Rand - you know the guy that wants to limit abortion,

There is a totally libertarian argument against abortion. Ron Paul is also anti-abortion.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:limit gay marriage via a state's rights copout,

No. He does not want it to be a government issue. If he wanted states to regulate marriage, he would be supporting Ted Cruz's bill that would do exactly that. But he hasn't, and never speaks about it.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:make illegal immigrant children foreigners in the country that they were born in,

Source? Rand has a more liberal attitude towards immigration than many of his Republican counterparts. He's called for a compromise on the issue, and generally wants more relaxed rules. He wants more liberal immigration laws than his father, for Pete's sakes.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:and continues to support wanking in the middle east.

What?

Republic Of Minerva wrote:Oh, and let's not forget voting against legislation to limit the police state because "it doesn't go far enough." Lel

Oh, the same piece of legislation that re-authorised the PATRIOT Act and NDAA? Boy, that Rand Paul is such a statist.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:Mike Gravel is a Jeffersonian libertarian. Rand Paul is a palecon.

A Jeffersonian libertarian is a libertarian that likes public education. Mike Gravel is a "libertarian" that likes the welfare state, endless subsidies, bakrupt entitlement programs, socialised healthcare mass theft, the regulatory state and wrecking the 1st Amendment. Rand Paul opposes all of these things, and on top of that he's the most anti-Drug War mainstream politician out there and has consistently voted on a platform of non-intervention.

Putting Rand Paul in the White House puts Ron Paul and a pro-10th Amendment Justice Department in the White House. Putting Mike Gravel in the White House just puts in a bunch of direct democracy advocates and Social Security reactionaries in the White House. His idea for a "national initiative" is a horrid idea that would totally disregard the Constitution and its principles.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:Lmao, you can't murder a fetus. Murder is a legal term.

Rofl, "Taxation can't be theft. Theft is a legal term."

Most scientists agree that fetuses are living creatures.

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/23/so_what_if_abortion_ends_life/

This Slate article sums up why pro-choice people should stop being science deniers. Abortion science denial is just another form of what I call ideological bias disorder, in my opinion, like when marijuana legalisation advocates claim weed has health benefits, which is patently ridiculous. If somebody's going to argue something, they should at least be honest and concede the trappings of reality before making their case.

In regards to this, abortion is indeed a killing. Some people think it is a justified killing, due to the mother's superior self-ownership rights. Others think it is not, due to both mother and baby's equal self-ownership rights. But nevertheless, abortion is most certainly a killing.

Conservative Idealism In Libertatem wrote:Okay. Now what?

In case you haven't realized this by now, we now have no legal precedent for the management of the flag and the WFE, and authority over them has not been granted to any branch, section, or position of government. In order to change this, we'll need a Constitutional amendment that affirms the founder - and President - has lost this power, and been given to someone else. Or, you know, you could call a recount.

I trust, of course, that you have planned for this eventuality and are already working on it?

I suggested that we pass a law to outline how to change the flag. But the Board already voted to repeal the EO without me, and I voted yes after the debate had pass and four votes had been cast. Editing the WFE and flag is a power of the President, but now that the Board has repealed the President's authority to change the flag, it seems to be a power that only the founder has until the Board clarifies this under the "check the power of the President" power. No constitutional amendment is required.

I have been speaking with Liberosia, who seems very clear on this issue, but instead of acting like an annoying middle man, I'll let him explain this whole thing here. I think we could all use some clarification.

Do we have an anthem ? If not it could be great to find one, reflecting our love for liberty etc

Pevvania wrote:I suggested that we pass a law to outline how to change the flag. But the Board already voted to repeal the EO without me, and I voted yes after the debate had pass and four votes had been cast. Editing the WFE and flag is a power of the President, but now that the Board has repealed the President's authority to change the flag, it seems to be a power that only the founder has until the Board clarifies this under the "check the power of the President" power. No constitutional amendment is required.

I have been speaking with Liberosia, who seems very clear on this issue, but instead of acting like an annoying middle man, I'll let him explain this whole thing here. I think we could all use some clarification.

For the purposes of clarification, the modus operandi for changing of the World Factbook Entry has been at the discretion of the primary executives, with the ultimate source being the founder and the president. This does not preclude consultation of the various legislative/judicial branches, it simply conforms to the identity of gameplay. The issue of the flag is rather different, for all those reasons that have heretofore been mentioned regarding its representation of the region et al.

The flag has become increasingly legislatorial over time (like other things), but it is not without precedent. There are even constitutional supports for my position on the authority to change the flag. The precedent, insofar that it exists, is but the instance of the installation of the current flag by myself and on my own authority. This would lend itself to the same precedent on the WFE. However, the region's flag must reflect the region's laws, and since the region's laws are determined by the people in the House, the flag should reflect those laws.

Article II, Section I, Subsection III of the Constitution

The President shall hold the power of the founder, but only at the discretion of the founder. The founder may restrict, or veto, the PresidentÂ’s power, or choose to share more privileges. The Presidency is attained by having the majority of endorsements, as legally mandated by tri-annual popular elections.

The President and by extension the executive have the legal power to change the flag qua execution of changing the flag as an authority granted by my discretion (which I do indeed grant).

By the above logic of laws related to the flag, a change of the flag should and must be put to a region-wide vote in the House, and then the executive must conform to this decision. The change can be anything within the bounds of the parameters of Article VIII of the Constitution, which, until repealed, is a primary legal position/precedent that the flag must reflect (again by the prior logic of laws related to the flag).

In the sense of policy, the appropriate course of action would be to hold a vote in the House for a new (or status quo) flag within the bounds of anti-communism. If the region wishes to make the flag unrelated to Article VIII, then there must be a constitutional amendment for its removal.

Any procedural laws as to the changing of the flag can be passed by the House as Pevvania has suggested. This is open to legislatorial interpretation.

Ankha wrote:Lib posted

Oh my God, Lib posted.

Lib is reachable by TG for those of you that don't know... He's a good guy!

Assembled with Dot's Region Saver.
Written by Refuge Isle.