by Hiriaurtung Arororugul » Sun May 09, 2010 4:30 pm
by Ainocra » Sun May 09, 2010 4:32 pm
by Freeoplis » Sun May 09, 2010 4:33 pm
by Sionis Prioratus » Sun May 09, 2010 4:48 pm
by Linux and the X » Sun May 09, 2010 6:00 pm
Sionis Prioratus wrote:Might I add a single one of these single handedly banished both Cthulhu and Mothra out of our sacred and most precious lands.
by Sionis Prioratus » Sun May 09, 2010 6:49 pm
by Hiriaurtung Arororugul » Sun May 09, 2010 7:07 pm
Freeoplis wrote:We would like to inquire what exactly is being proposed?
by Hiriaurtung Arororugul » Sun May 09, 2010 7:08 pm
by Glen-Rhodes » Sun May 09, 2010 7:14 pm
Hiriaurtung Arororugul wrote:Stop spamming.
by Hiriaurtung Arororugul » Sun May 09, 2010 7:24 pm
Glen-Rhodes wrote:Hiriaurtung Arororugul wrote:Stop spamming.
That's not spam. It's an opinion on the matter of national sovereignty and reintroducing the National Sovereignty Organization. It's just more entertaining to scream INTERNATIONAL FEDERALISM, than to write 10 paragraphs on the necessity of the World Assembly to not be preemptively limited in what it can do.
by Linux and the X » Sun May 09, 2010 8:14 pm
Hiriaurtung Arororugul wrote:Glen-Rhodes wrote:Hiriaurtung Arororugul wrote:Stop spamming.
That's not spam. It's an opinion on the matter of national sovereignty and reintroducing the National Sovereignty Organization. It's just more entertaining to scream INTERNATIONAL FEDERALISM, than to write 10 paragraphs on the necessity of the World Assembly to not be preemptively limited in what it can do.
No, it's spam. If you don't have any substantive arguments to make then please go somewhere else.
by Sagatagan » Sun May 09, 2010 8:50 pm
by Hiriaurtung Arororugul » Sun May 09, 2010 9:14 pm
Linux and the X wrote:While I often disagree with Dr Castro, I have no choice her but to find that the Doctor's statement, while brief, is a reasonable point.
I also note that, by your own standard, Ambassador Arororugul, of requiring 'substantive arguments', makes your claims themself spam.
by Grays Harbor » Sun May 09, 2010 9:22 pm
Hiriaurtung Arororugul wrote:Glen-Rhodes wrote:Hiriaurtung Arororugul wrote:Stop spamming.
That's not spam. It's an opinion on the matter of national sovereignty and reintroducing the National Sovereignty Organization. It's just more entertaining to scream INTERNATIONAL FEDERALISM, than to write 10 paragraphs on the necessity of the World Assembly to not be preemptively limited in what it can do.
No, it's spam. If you don't have any substantive arguments to make then please go somewhere else.
by Hiriaurtung Arororugul » Sun May 09, 2010 9:22 pm
Sagatagan wrote:The WA is a voluntary association. Isn't the point, giving up some national sovereignty, in exchange for a say in a federation of parties?
by Hiriaurtung Arororugul » Sun May 09, 2010 9:30 pm
Grays Harbor wrote:Firstly ... Not the spam. Not the spam. You might also want to watch who you are telling to "go somewhere else". While we frequently disagree with Dr Castro and the Glen-Rhodes delegation, they are indeed one of the more learned, thoughtful and articulate opponents we have,
whereas we have never before even heard of you.
Second ... While we are one of the leading voices of the National Sovereignty side of most arguments here, we also believe we do not require any specific organization telling us how and when and why to vote on any particular issue. Our arguments and votes are based solely on what we believe is best for our region and what is best for our nation, not on what some organization deems is best for us. To our way of thinking, that is little better than the International federationists, who mostly seem to want the WA to hold everybody's hand for them. How is having a national sovereignty organization which determines the issues for us that much better?
by Ryouese Black Islands » Sun May 09, 2010 9:31 pm
Hiriaurtung Arororugul wrote:Sagatagan wrote:The WA is a voluntary association. Isn't the point, giving up some national sovereignty, in exchange for a say in a federation of parties?
But does it make sense, in each and every case, for the WA to violate national sovereignty? Just because it is a voluntary organization and it is accepted that you give up "some" sovereignty upon joining, does that mean that there should be no restraints? Are there not some instances where it makes sense to handle things at the national level? I think we all understand that some sovereignty is surrendered at the door, but does that mean that we all become puppets of the WA? And as for this "federation of parties", what are the advantages of that? Collective security? A common market? Neither of those things exist in the WA.
by Hiriaurtung Arororugul » Sun May 09, 2010 9:53 pm
Sionis Prioratus wrote:
by Sagatagan » Sun May 09, 2010 10:06 pm
Hiriaurtung Arororugul wrote:Sagatagan wrote:The WA is a voluntary association. Isn't the point, giving up some national sovereignty, in exchange for a say in a federation of parties?
But does it make sense, in each and every case, for the WA to violate national sovereignty? Just because it is a voluntary organization and it is accepted that you give up "some" sovereignty upon joining, does that mean that there should be no restraints? Are there not some instances where it makes sense to handle things at the national level? I think we all understand that some sovereignty is surrendered at the door, but does that mean that we all become puppets of the WA? And as for this "federation of parties", what are the advantages of that? Collective security? A common market? Neither of those things exist in the WA.
by Hiriaurtung Arororugul » Sun May 09, 2010 10:19 pm
Sagatagan wrote:Well, no, it doesn't mean that the WA should perpetually be violating national sovereignty. But, a lot of resolutions would be meaningless without violating sovereignty in some way. I usually oppose a resolution that violates national sovereignty unless it has to do with human rights or environmental issues that effect the whole world because they're a fluid commons, like the ocean or the atmosphere. I would argue that we have a common market (with or without the WA) and agree that the WA gives little security, while arguing that perhaps it should NOT give a great amount of security, except to stop invasions. Otherwise, we get a near-monopoly of violence, and that's a whole new super-state. Anyway, yes, a nation should have sovereignty over its own lands and commons, and in all other fields unless human rights become a concern. However, some gratuitous infringing of sovereignty is to be expected, which is why the WA is voluntary, just like many other voluntary pacts and arrangements a nation can enter into that may violate less. Overall, I'd say, if you want to make sure that the largest pact in the world is both voluntary AND respects national sovereignty to a grater degree, go for it. I might even read your manifesto and support some of your actions.
by Grays Harbor » Sun May 09, 2010 10:21 pm
by Sagatagan » Sun May 09, 2010 10:25 pm
by Hiriaurtung Arororugul » Sun May 09, 2010 10:28 pm
Grays Harbor wrote:
Seriously? Are you really that ego-centric that you believe that everybody has heard of you? Until this topic, we had no clue you even existed, therefore our respect level for what you may or may not have to say is at the "neutral/zero" level as we have nothing to base our opinion on other than this topic. And judging by what you have posted so far, we are not very impressed.
But, oh well, thats how the cookie bounces.
by Grays Harbor » Sun May 09, 2010 11:21 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement