«12. . .917918919920921922923. . .2,1812,182»
Oh I love how things are done here. Absolute disregard for laws? Hey, I'm the anarchist after all....
You seem to be realizing how your 12$ of propaganda lies have miserably backfired on you. It's your proposals after all. You don't get to complain. What's it called... Oh ya. Personal Responsibility. You don't like it? Tough.
lol
Your view of reality gets more and more curious with every post.
**STAMP OUT SOCIALISM IN GOVERNMENT - VOTE NAY ON CYBERNOMIX'S PLAN TO DESTROY PRIVATE ENTERPRISE!**
So let me get this straight... according to you my bill is wealth redistribution and taxation and intervention and market regulation.
Consider this post an account for future accusations of your lying propaganda. We both know that the only reason your propaganda victims believe you is because they don't have the time to fact-check you.
Who knows, if you keep doing it I just might accuse you of being unfit for duty due to psychosis. You are seeing things that are not there.
Come on Cybernomix, we've talked about this. According to me, your bill is an intrusion by government into private industry. According to me this should not take place because government does not compete on a level playing field with private industry. When this happens in the United States, without fail the private industry fails. This is socialism because the government own the industry. When all the competition dies out, that becomes a socialistic monopoly.
Unlike you, I do not think that all things should be private. Among those things are the law enforcement, the courts, the roads or the military. But keep on keeping on. It is your head thumping on the bricks, Not mine.
ROFL!!! Go ahead and give that a shot. I look forward to it. However that axe swings two ways.
**KEEP GOVERNMENT OUT OF OUR INDUSTRY - VOTE "NAY" ON CYBERNOMIX'S PROPOSAL**
If you can prove how, then I will vote nay on my own proposal.
If the government heavily subsidies Goverment-Controlled Industry, then Natural Capitalism as used by the Western World, is no longer truly Capitalism. Rather, we essentially have the modern day Chinese Economic System. And this an inferior system, as these corporations subsidies by the government cannot even be proven to be effective, as they need government funds. Keep the markets free! Save Capitalism!
I have received many telegrams about the proposed law currently at vote questioning whether the law is constitutional, proposing a suit against the law or asking me to stop the current vote.
I do believe that I do not have the authority to stop the vote nor do I have the authority to decide the constitutionality of a proposed law. If I had those powers, it would make the office of the POL and the Supreme Court respectively unnecessary.
Every level of the regional government has the clause, "Enforcement and defense of this Constitution and the common defense of Capitalist Paradise," in the duties. As such the Legislature had a chance to prevent the law during the law's construction. The were opportunities to voice your concerns and change the law as it was publicly announced and debated on the regional forums prior to its submission to the Legislature. The President of Legislature could have rejected presenting the law for a vote under the clause. The Legislature now gets a second chance to voice opinions on the law by voting. If it passes, then a suit against the law will occur and the SC will be able to enforce the clause.
Acario, of course we can sue. However, you are the one that must enforce it.
If a judgement is ruled in favor of government providing services, then so be it.
If a judgement is ruled against providing services, then the SC is also ruling against itself as they are providing a judicial service. A ruling by an illegal court holds no weight.
I called upon your powers as Delegate to protect and enforce this constitution, as you are the one that must ultimately enforce rulings. So before you enforce that ruling, just make sure you are ok with the implications on the Supreme Court.
How is the court ruling against itself?! Please, someone explain this to me because I must be missing something. The court is not providing any service, it is simply ruling whether or not your bill is constitutional or not. That's not a service, that's just doing its job
Providing a ruling is the service of dispute resolution. aka judicial services
Suppose you are right tho.
Ok, let's extend your logic. If providing rulings is just doing its job and not a service, then the same is true private courts. Just because one is public and one is private, does not change what is being provided.
Let's extend your logic a 2nd time. If providing something is not a service and is simply doing your job, then the same is true of all corporations. Thus, corporations are simply doing their jobs and not providing services. What is provided may change, but it does not change the fact that something is being provided.
As you can see by your logic, the government can provide everything because it is just doing its job. Hence, this bill is no longer in violation of Point 2.
---
See? You cannot have it both ways.
If the court is providing a service, it is in violation of Point 2. If the government is just doing its job, then the same is true of anything else the government applies.
Really, this is what it boils down to: you either keep the court and my bill, or you get rid of both
Senior, I do not think that means what you think it means.
Seriously, I'm not sure how things work on your planet, but here in reality, the court, and if need be the vocals, have the final say in legal matters. How you arrived at that part about an illegal court is beyond me. Perhaps you should reread the regional constitution.
You are not missing anything. Cybernomix is making this up as he goes along while ignoring that part about the court's right to moderate these proceedings.
Actually, we can. The law was written very carefully to allow for it.
**PREVENT CHAOS IN GOVERNMENT - VOTE NAY ON CYBERNOMIX'S LEGISLATION**
Ya that's it. Cover your behind. Your lies are the reason you fooled the region into enacting Point 2 of Inherent Rights of Membership. Thanks to that, the government cannot provide judicial services.
First of all I have debunked this nonsense already. If you have no rebuttal, this is nothing but more propaganda from you. See below for re-debunking.
You are referring to Point 3 of Inherent Rights of Membership.
If all services are RP, then so is judicial services, in which case the SC is yet again illegal. If you claim that judicial services are GP, then all services are GP, in which case all the current bill is legal.
Yet again, you cannot have it both ways; even for Point 3, it is again a choice between the Court and my bill or neither
I already knew your claim. The burden is on you to prove it. Repeating what you have already said changes nothing.
You keep making this claim over and over, yet you fail to prove where you got it from. No one has ever said all services are RP or GP. The Constitution makes it very clear that the court are GP and that they have defined roles.
Well, there you go. If judicial services are GP, so is every other service. Point 3 is officially a non-issue. Thx for that.
throwing a nay vote out, because state owned corporation mixes with capitalism about as well as oil mixes with water.
Amazing Family Jewels, Capitalist Producers, and Gresthil
Okay, so we take point three out of the mix, your bill is still Illegal. Nothing has changed
How are my fine capitalist fellows doing on this fine day?
Nothing has changed for Point 3.
But the same logic applies to Point 2. Depending on how Point 2 is interpreted, it might not be. Either way, the same standard must be applied to any entity that provides something for the public, be it a private or public entity such as the SC
Either they are both just doing their jobs (legal for both), or they are both providing a service (illegal for both). Either they are both competing (illegal for both), or neither are (legal for both).
I love this. I sue the court because the laws are in violation of the court, and I am dismissed with prejudice, aka misconduct.
Now suddenly, a bill appears that you guys don't like, and ''you're going to sue me'', because it violates Points 2.
Been there done that guys. They did not want to address this issue; they refused to rule FOR their legitimacy when they clearly could. Actually, CapPro was the one who first proposed the dismissal ironically.
Wrong again o أدناه الصحراء فنان القرف الفي
It was dismissed with prejudice aka do not bring it again without the provision I gave you
You will not be sued
Charged possibly
Should these proposal be passed is likely Constitutional challenge
Capitalist Producers was not first to offer dismissing
nay! I WARN to investige if we infiltrated cells socialists boycotters
«12. . .917918919920921922923. . .2,1812,182»
Advertisement
