A Time for Change

[Lance]

Originally Posted by falco10291029

As was done, im not gonna quopte, ill do with numbers, yay:

1) *sigh* i am saying that the content of how you are acting is wrong. An attitude can be wrong. If you are angry because you won some money, that would be considered wrong, just as i consider you thinking that you are smart wrong.

What's wrong with my attitude? I repeat: I am smart. So what?

2)Read your posts. Anyone else on this side of the argument will agree with me, you cannot prove a point correctly.

Except that you fail to provide me with even a bit of supporting evidence here.

3)No I do not see the problem. If we had a president elected and then all of a sudden congress decided he'd stay for life, it would still be a democracy/republic.

That logic also justifies this situation:

-Country A forms a republican government.
-Country A becomes a totalitarian government.
-Country A can safely call itself a Republic, because it was a republic at one point in time.

I will ask again, do you see the problem here?

4)Your posts are disproved any thread where someone quotes your points. Just about everyone has proven a bunch of your points wrong.

Yet you fail to identify even one. Isn't that sad?

5)How is that a label?

Look it up.

6)My reasoning is far from flawed. If anyone's is, it is yours, you do not have sufficient evidence for your bclaims, so please acting like I'M the idiot, we all know it is the other way around(expression, dont just get someone to quote they think you're smart....).

Examine my hypothetical situation for justification of my statement.

7)I demonstrated the relevance quite well, you just cant get it into your head, as was said earlier, not my fault.

Saying something is relevant isn't proving that it is, man.

8)No I dont, there is no evidence out there to correctly support you. This is quite right, unless you can prove potherwise, you, the accuser, has the burden of proof, not me.

No, pay attention. I said it was inaccurate, and I provided my proof in the form of supporting evidence. You said I was incorrect, but failed to provide proof of that.

9)Erm actually everyone gets the 1 non backed up point you have, you just repeat it because you have nothing else.

What?

10) Far from it, it just opens more questions, like "How did he come up with such a non-backed argument?"

Uh, you still haven't justified any of your allegations, man.

11)Wow even you wonder about your stupidity, funny. Try asking your parents.

Don't be childish.

12)Nope, it shows what should be accepted. Say there is a new kid in school. He acts a certain way and is accepted. Another new kid comes EXACTLY like the first one, and is turned down, making the others hypocrites and such. My point as you can see here is well backed with a good example. I cannot say the same for anything you have posted thus far.

In the first half of the second millenium, it was accepted that the earth was flat. So, then, would it be accurate to say that the earth was flat? What, it wouldn't? Oh, my goodness!

13) you dont get it, not surprising. I am saying you are repeating the same nonbacked up argument over, and i keep having to say this to you! I wonder when you will finally get it....

I will never 'get' what you are trying to say so long as it is incoherent and especially while it is incorrect. Kindly justify your statements, or back off.

14)I gave a fair explanation to it, I cannot explain firther, i have trouble explaining these things .........hmm the only other things i'd have trouble explaining this too is a rock.....

You provided no justification to your statements. Your arguments consist of "It's obvious'. Doesn't work!

15)I demonstrated it. when you learn how to use scroll up you can look at that part of the post.

See above!

16)I phrase them just fine, I am sure most others get what i am saying. Also my typing, to quote "The Great God of Hot Air", is irrelevant. And it really is, unlike most other points you call irrelevant.

Perhaps irrelevant, but oh so fun to point out! I'll direct you to every phrase I have labelled incoherent!

17) Couldnt come up with a witty comeback? I suppose youd first need wit to do this.

Another childish insult, congratulations! However, when one insults another's wit, it is generally required that they possess the capability to recognize wit when they see it!

[protagonist]

Originally Posted by Lance

What's wrong with my attitude? I repeat: I am smart. So what?

How can someone who is self-allegedly so smart be defying various other moderators over something so ****ing stupid?

Originally Posted by Lance

Except that you fail to provide me with even a bit of supporting evidence here.

Neither do you. All you have managed to do is start a bashfest, which has been closed several times by other moderators. Perhaps you should take a step back and look?

Originally Posted by Lance

That logic also justifies this situation:

-Country A forms a republican government.
-Country A becomes a totalitarian government.
-Country A can safely call itself a Republic, because it was a republic at one point in time.

I will ask again, do you see the problem here?

I see a problem. You are still foolishly arguing the name of a country. There is a county in California called Orange county. Am I to assume that it is orange?

[QUOTE=Lance]
Yet you fail to identify even one. Isn't that sad?

Originally Posted by Lance

Another childish insult, congratulations! However, when one insults another's wit, it is generally required that they possess the capability to recognize wit when they see it!

You seem to be lacking in that[the wit] department in this thread. You keep using the same tired argument which is still no more valid than opinion. You do not have a universal leg to stand on, it's simply a matter of your preference over theirs. I can see no reason for this other than you are bored and feel like stirring the pot.

[Nappa]

Originally Posted by protagonist

How can someone who is self-allegedly so smart be defying various other moderators over something so ****ing stupid?

Wow, you're right. YOU ARE THE SMART ONE!

Neither do you. All you have managed to do is start a bashfest, which has been closed several times by other moderators. Perhaps you should take a step back and look?

Lance didn't start anything - He merely argued the points. Their is nothing illegal with this thread, at all.

I see a problem. You are still foolishly arguing the name of a country. There is a county in California called Orange county. Am I to assume that it is orange?

The oranges that create my orange juice come from Orange County California. Find a better example.

You seem to be lacking in that[the wit] department in this thread. You keep using the same tired argument which is still no more valid than opinion. You do not have a universal leg to stand on, it's simply a matter of your preference over theirs. I can see no reason for this other than you are bored and feel like stirring the pot.

Not really.. How is telling someone something is not a republic an oppinion ? Facts aren't oppinions last I checked.

[protagonist]

Originally Posted by Nappa

Wow, you're right. YOU ARE THE SMART ONE!

Correct.

Originally Posted by Nappa

Lance didn't start anything - He merely argued the points. Their is nothing illegal with this thread, at all.

Other than it's unwanted by the kingdom leader. It's a kingdom forum, remember?

Originally Posted by Nappa

The oranges that create my orange juice come from Orange County California. Find a better example.

I've listed several.

Originally Posted by Nappa

Not really.. How is telling someone something is not a republic an oppinion ? Facts aren't oppinions last I checked.

He said it and now he's saying that they should change it because of that.

[busyrobot]

Nappa, if you were at a city hall meeting, and an issue was brought up, you said your bit, your requests were considered inadquetely argued, and the meeting moved on....... if you badgered on about it would get you would be thrown out and possibly locked up.

There is a reason for that, based on laws that have been refined over a very long time to balance people's right to be heard vs the right of other people not even get a chance to have their voices heard because of another's whining on and on.

The spirit of the rules to every forum is based on that balance.



Regarding this tired and truly 'of the undead' topic, (having been closed by a moderator, and reopened by an arguer), I really really hope we find where to stick this freak'n wooden stake soon and be done with it.


from the Constitition:

2. Legislative
The Legislative branch shall be comprised of the rest of the political party which is in power at the time. These people have the power to propose treaties and draft laws which are acceptable under Constitutional standards. To do either of these things, a 2/3 majority vote must be reached in order for the law or treaty proposition can be officially enacted. The Legislative branch may be given additional rights if permitted by the senior official, and also retains the right to veto any action made by the Executive branch if a 3/4 majority vote is reached. However, because the Head of State is also the senior official of the party in power, this person is intrusted to know best the goals and ideology of the party, and is therefore entitled to overturn vetos and any official action made by the rest of the party.

This is the concept of a voting body making ruling decisions, period.

Now, from http://www.worldwidewebfind.com/ency.../republic.html

Republic
A republic is a form of government (and a state so governed) where a monarch is not the head of state. The word is derived from the Latin res publica, or "public affair", and suggests an ownership and control of the state by the population at large. The concept of democracy, however, is not implicit to that of a republic. The republican form of government may involve a limited democracy, where such rights are available only to a limited group of people, as is the case in many of today's dictatorial or totalitarian states. The term is also broad enough to include many of today's advanced democracies.

Do you see the relevancy this time Lance?

A limited group of people in the Zormite Republic get to vote, just like they do in real world nations that are also defined as..... Republics.

It even stated the definition as being broad enough to include concepts so crazy as wacky totalitarian places like China could even accurately be called a Republic. Imagine that....wow, whooda thunk.

[GoZelda]

Republic
A republic is a form of government (and a state so governed) where a monarch is not the head of state. The word is derived from the Latin res publica, or "public affair", and suggests an ownership and control of the state by the population at large. The concept of democracy, however, is not implicit to that of a republic. The republican form of government may involve a limited democracy, where such rights are available only to a limited group of people, as is the case in many of today's dictatorial or totalitarian states. The term is also broad enough to include many of today's advanced democracies.

Look up synonyms of Monarch and of Dictator please.

[busyrobot]

Originally Posted by GoZelda

Look up synonyms of Monarch and of Dictator please.

How about you explain whatever you are thinking, as Zormite is ruled by a Dictator, not a Monarch.

[Monkeyboy_McGee]

Oh look, lance's skydog has returned from his holiday in the slipstream.

Originally Posted by Nappa

The oranges that create my orange juice come from Orange County California. Find a better example.

The fish i had the other week came from the atlantic ocean. Shall we rename it "Fish ocean" instead? Nah, lets not

Originally Posted by GoZelda

Look up synonyms of Monarch and of Dictator please.

Yay, i get a turn to do it now!

IRRELEVANT!!1111.One