«12. . .918919920921922923924. . .2,1802,181»
My wifes have again stoling my cigarettes
Dam
Google:
About 51,500,000 results (0.37 seconds)
Search Results
In the formal legal world a court case that is dismissed with prejudice means that it is dismissed permanently. A case dismissed with prejudice is over and done with, once and for all, and can't be brought back to court. A case dismissed without prejudice means the opposite. It's not dismissed forever.
You are not always privy to all our conversatings
Wessler and Greatubs
Save the markets!
Doing great. I'm out here generating revenue to put back into the economy. (a/k/a Work.)
You are really confused. The law is clearly not what you are representing it to be. We've talked about this.
And up until now I thought you knew everything. At least that is what you keep expending a great deal of energy to tell us.
Once again, I'm not sure how things work on your island, but back here in the real world "Dismissed with Prejudice" means the matter is settled once and for all. You cannot bring that issue back again. Were it simply dismissed the complaint could be refiled sometime in the future. The closest you came to a misconduct complaint (so far...) was my suggestion you may be sanctioned for filing a frivolous lawsuit. The court decided against that.
Silly expert in all things... No one is going to sue you. Any lawsuit brought to challenge the constitutionality of a law will be brought against the government. You need to crack some books on subjects other than the stuff you think constitutes real world economics.
Senior, I do not think that word means what you think it means...
So, here's what i'm getting out of this. (Feel free to correct me if i'm wrong.)
Cyber- proposing a bill that walks like socialism and quacks like socialism, yet declaring it necessary for a free market. further declaring the court will be illegal (if his bill does not pass) because it ruled against his last bill.
Am I missing something there?
MoBB- demonstrating uncharacteristically large amounts of good behavior. Engaging in debate with a facts to sarcasm ratio that's unheard of for CP.
Call me crazy, but I think the bigger issue in the region is that our very own MoBB is being impersonated by someone much more mild mannered.
Wessler, Capitalist Producers, Tyzoid, and Armus Republic
See wiki
Criminal Law: ''a proceeding which ends prematurely due to error, mistake, or misconduct, may end as being dismissed with prejudice or without prejudice''
Civil Law: ''the judge has determined that the plaintiff has brought the case in bad faith, has failed to bring the case in a reasonable time, has failed to comply with court procedures, or on the merits after hearing the arguments in court''
So which is it then hmm? error? (nope!); mistake? (nope!); bad faith? (nope!); timeframe? (nope!); compliance? misconduct? (hmm...)
If you are going to make the case that this was dismissed for no reason in particular, then you are proving my point with respect to the court. You are not willing to do you jobs.
You are a hebrew african. You see how that's baseless? It is a claim with no evidence.
I got news for you. Making claims? That's not a debate. Backing up your claims? That's what you have yet to do if you want to be taken seriously.
Saying ''you are wrong'' doesn't actually make me wrong. So that quote right there is yet another addition to a whole slew of baseless claims you have made.
As for the bill, I am still waiting for you to explain to me how a market with no taxation, forced buying, or regulation, where all activity is voluntary is not a free market. as I said before, prove this and I will vote nay on my own proposal. Why didn't you answer when I asked you the 1st 2 times hmm?
Oh you just love not doing your job don't you? Gimme a break -.-
-_- ya I meant the government.
Nicely done, you know what with prejudice means! Great!
Now, let's try dismissal with prejudice... *gasp* See post above, there must be a reason for dismissal. If there is none, then you are simply refusing to do your job.
Yes. I will go point by point.
1. Socialism is public means of production. This bill is not.
2. I am not declaring it necessary for a free market. I said that in the absence of taxation, forced buying, and regulation, then the market is free.
3. I am declaring the court is illegal due to it violating Point 2 of Inherent Rights of Membership. The court never ruled against any of my bills.
Capitalism is the answer to everything, the solution is always capitalism. Even if the problem be capitalism, capitalism can always solve it. For Capitalism is the one and only economic system for the world.
That explains some of those Thanksgiving dinners from my youth.
The inherent rights of membership section is supposed to designed so that the regional government cannot impose things on the national governments (the player). The regional government cannot charge players in order to be a member of the region. The regional government cannot force players to make their nation specialize in say arms manufacturing. The regional government cannot make services and compete with nationally produced services. The regional government cannot force players to setting a certain flag or motto. The regional government cannot be roleplayed in any RPs. You are mixing things up by saying rule two must be applied to both public and private. Rule two only applies to public owned business, which means your bill is illegal. If you want to make that private, go ahead. But it won't be on the books and won't effect anyone.
You are not going LET me deflect anymore? Who died and left you on God's throne?
I've already explained all of it to you (and everyone else) numerous times. Like I said, we already talked about this. If you want to understand, go back and read what I wrote. Only this time instead of immediately running off to some obscure wiki-link or tossing out some barely relevant Keynesian fantasy based on word, actually read and comprehend the entire post.
The truth shall set you free.
Excuse me mister minister (try saying that 5 times fast) I'm here on behalf of the school of the scrolling impaired, perhaps you could do my pupils a favor and link your previous statements. Thank you, it's a debilitating condition but with a little help maybe we can all get through it together.
Here are a couple:
page=rmb/postid=11242853
page=rmb/postid=11236307
There is another one floating around here with words to the effect of "The regional government is constitutionally forbidden to form or own a private sector business. Therefore there is no point in creating an office that creates a governmental position to over see it." Can't find that one at the moment.
Also, from the time Cybernomix first suggested this, numerous people, myself included, pointed out that everything Cybernomix is proposing can be done without bringing the regional government into it. But still, while using more smoke and mirrors then a Las Vegas Strip magic act, he persists in his attempts to drag our regional government into it. He does so arguing his position with wiki-links to left wing buzz-phrases, citing economic theories that do not apply here in Nation States and tossing out names like Milton Friedman as if the mere invocation of the name makes his case. (Milton would be rolling over in his grave if he was alive to see how Cybernomix is twisting his words.)
With all that wasted bandwidth, I still haven't got a clue why the regional government needs to be, or even should be, a part of this. After discussions with others in the region, including members of government, that lack of understanding seems to be unanimous. Without the ability to tax, enforce trade, own physical property or a revenue stream, there is absolutely no reason for a treasurer or a government owned private sector business czar. That comes out to no good reason to have this law or these positions on the books.
Lastly, at this point, and speaking only for myself, I simply do not trust Cybernomix. There is far too much effort being expended here for what appears to be no gain. I personally believe there is something going on the rest of us are unaware of. This legislation may be just one step toward whatever the end goal is.
With his promotion of his external "bank" website, it crosses my mind there could be some blow back from the ever caring, loving and always reasonable Nation States moderators. That is reason enough to keep the entire thing at arm's length from the regional government.
Czeckolutania & Armus Republic see below.
I thought we were having an intelligent debate here. It is clear that the problem is a lot more basic than I thought.
It is obvious that CapPro does not understand deductive logic. I will restate my argument in point form for simplicity.
E.g. of deductive logic applied to mortality (we are going to use this 1st one as a template)
If I am human, and humans are mortal, then it follow that I am mortal.
---
E.g. of deductive logic applied to legality
If the government provision of services are illegal, and the government provides judicial services, the it follows that the government provision of judicial services is illegal.
---
E.g. of deductive logic applied to free markets
If a market is deemed free in the absence of taxation and regulation, and government provides services without either of those, it then follows that voluntary provision of government services is within a free market.
---
Czeckolutania & Armus Republic see quote above.
As you can see, it is basically unproven claims, he said she said, "it's not true just cuz". Now, compare that to the rather clean academic format of deductive logic. The great thing about deductive logic is that you cannot twist words. And it is very helpful in identifying when you or the other person is wrong.
If his logic and axioms were right, then my axioms or logic are wrong. If his logic or axioms were wrong, then his conclusion is wrong. This debate would have been over a long time ago. However, I have pressed him 3 times to prove his claims and he refuses. 2 deflections and a flat-out refusal. I am baffled at how he claims that I am the one twisting words. Oh wait... he didn't back that either did he... hmm.
Czeckolutania & Armus Republic see post above.
That right there, is CapPro's classic one-two special.
I debunked all of the above in the forum, applying deductive logic. Then we moved on and on to my bill and the legality of the court, then in came my deductive logic... and BOOM. He is put in a corner so he repeats the very first argument.
Nice move CapPro. Except that you cannot prove a point with the point itself; that's called circular logic and it is a fallacy of logic.
Using deductive logic, explain to me how is a market with no taxation, forced buying, or regulation, not a free market.
For the 4th time. I am waiting.
As you can see folks, this is how baseless he is. He takes advantage of the fact that only a few of you will bother fact-checking.
You - a government official - are here to serve us, the populace. Now, you made claim after claim, the burden is on you to prove yourself.
Post by Sereny suppressed by a moderator.
I am serving the people's best interests by protecting those same people from your legislation.
Waiting build character. Something you could use a little bit more of.
Somehow, the last part of my post fell off. I probably touched the touch pad while posting it. So here it is again as best as I remember it...
And with everything Cybernomix said in his most recent post, he has still yet to give one good, easily understood reason why the government of this region should participate in his private venture, let alone a compelling need for it. Nor has he stated why a region with no revenue, no money in the bank and no ability to collect any money needs a treasurer. And we are sill waiting for him to explain why a region that is constitutionally prevented from entering the private sector needs a Minister of Corporate Affairs.
I am many things, but dumb is not one of them. Do not treat me as such during this.
Again, you are mixing two things into one "issue" to win people over. No wherein the Constitution does it say the government cannot provide judicial services. In fact, if you'd read the Constitution, you'll see that the Constitution actually calls for courts, which means the judicial system in the region is legal. What is explicitly prohibited is the creation of any government ran business or government controlled business, which is what your bill is about.
You debunked nothing. You just repeated yourself in multiple different ways. "1+1=2, therefore my bill is legal". I won't claim to be proficient in economics, but I can tell an illegal bill apart from a Constitutional one.
As one of the original writers of the current constitution I can tell you the court exist just fine. Cybertomix's bill is unnecessary.
Capitalist Producers, Tyzoid, and Armus Republic
Czeckolutania & Armus Republic see that?
THAT is twisting words. He is using the assumption that my bill is bad for the region. Except... he has explicitly REFUSED to prove why. He has yet to prove why the market becomes any less free without taxation, corecion, or regulation even though this is the 5th time I am asking him.
Czeckolutania & Armus Republic see that?
THAT is twisting words. He is using the assumption that I am forcing the government to take part in a venture. In reality, the government can perfectly sit idle and do nothing. And that is exactly what will happen, unless someone voluntarily gives money to the government (which is not illegal)
Czeckolutania & Armus Republic see that? That is a word for word lie.
"anyone may purchase shares or lend to state or private corporations" - actual quote on forum
"Voluntary trade makes everyone better off through trade, regardless of who does the trading. Econ 101." - actual quote on forum
"The state corporations are privately funded and do not have unlimited check books. Also, the transactions are voluntary. if buyers prefer what the state corporation has to offer, it will be more economicaly efficient to get the most for their money that way. If they decide they prefer private, the state owned corporation goes bankrupt as would any other corporation. " - actual quote on forum
As you can see, he is now a proven liar.
Czeckolutania & Armus Republic see that? Let's apply the deductive logic like before, but in reverse.
If government providing services is illegal, and government provides judicial services, then the government provision of services is illegal.
OR
If the government provision of judicial services is legal, and judicial services are services, then the government provision of services is legal.
Pick your battle CapPro! You can have the court and bill or neither! As long as you keep repeating this point, I will repeat the response. If you disprove me using deductive logic, then the debate stops automatically. You know this, yet you continue. And there you have it folks! A proven liar and a true politician!
Czeckolutania & Armus Republic see that? That is his response to me asking for proof of his claims the 4th time.
The simplicity is intended for CapPro -_-
If you will go back to my previous post, you will see that I made the case that the ruling can go either way but either both stay or go. My point here is that the laws conflict with each other therefore One of those laws need to go, either Point 2, or the Judiciary.
The constitution says the government cannot compete or intervene in private markets. Then why can it provide a private service, and why does it impose a monopoly on the recognition of rulings? Whether you like it or not, that is illegal.
But then you said that the court is not providing judicial services it is "just doing its job". Well, by your logic, PMCs also "just do their job". In which case, they are both legal.
So which is it armus? how do you reconcile Point 2 with the judiciary hmm?
Correction, it is competition that is prohibited. If you provide something that could have been provided privately, that is competition.
Again, Point 2 violates the Judiciary and vice versa.
Law is what you wish will happen. Economics is what actually happens.
I see that you read Point 2. Explain to me how the Judiciary does not violate Point 2?
In your explanation, just remember that the "judicial services is not a service" argument leads to the legality of Point 2, as explained above.
Try this logic:
If the Capitalist Paradise Constitution says "The regional government may not manipulate nor compete with the public or private sector markets of resident nations through any means", that would mean that the regional government may not manipulate nor compete with the public or private sector markets of resident nations through any means.
If the Capitalist Paradise Constitutional government structure mandates a Supreme Court, that would mean that Capitalist Paradise will have a Supreme Court.
It really really really is that simple
«12. . .918919920921922923924. . .2,1802,181»
Advertisement