Bojikami wrote:Or, another option. Athenian Democracy.
You can't be based of the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics and use DIRECT DEMOCRACY
Advertisement
by Roski » Thu Sep 18, 2014 3:57 pm
Bojikami wrote:Or, another option. Athenian Democracy.
by Bojikami » Thu Sep 18, 2014 3:58 pm
by Roski » Thu Sep 18, 2014 4:00 pm
by Zoboyizakoplayoklot » Thu Sep 18, 2014 4:00 pm
by Bojikami » Thu Sep 18, 2014 4:01 pm
by The United Motherland » Thu Sep 18, 2014 4:01 pm
by Roski » Thu Sep 18, 2014 4:02 pm
The United Motherland wrote:Roski wrote:
The fact that most of the countries in here are Left-Wing Authoritiarian Governments, and which is based of the USSR.
Point it, you can't be United Left and then use Rightist policies.
... No.
I am honestly offended by the amount of how you thought of that.
Economics is different than a political system. You can have a right-wing dictatorship, and you can have a left. Democracy does not stay to one side.
by The United Motherland » Thu Sep 18, 2014 4:03 pm
Roski wrote:The United Motherland wrote:... No.
I am honestly offended by the amount of how you thought of that.
Economics is different than a political system. You can have a right-wing dictatorship, and you can have a left. Democracy does not stay to one side.
Direct Democracy is rightist.
A republican form of government is more leftist.
by Bojikami » Thu Sep 18, 2014 4:04 pm
Roski wrote:The United Motherland wrote:... No.
I am honestly offended by the amount of how you thought of that.
Economics is different than a political system. You can have a right-wing dictatorship, and you can have a left. Democracy does not stay to one side.
Direct Democracy is rightist.
A republican form of government is more leftist.
by Roski » Thu Sep 18, 2014 4:04 pm
by Bojikami » Thu Sep 18, 2014 4:06 pm
by Roski » Thu Sep 18, 2014 4:07 pm
by The United Motherland » Thu Sep 18, 2014 4:07 pm
by Roski » Thu Sep 18, 2014 4:08 pm
The United Motherland wrote:Roski wrote:
So, if this alliance isn't against Freedoms, why are you against the International Freedom Coalition?
That doesn't add up to me.
"Hey, I don't like the IFC"
"Lets literally make the most political freedoms possible"
Well. If anything, the battle does not include political conflict, it mostly includes economical conflict of ideals.
by The United Motherland » Thu Sep 18, 2014 4:10 pm
by Roski » Thu Sep 18, 2014 4:11 pm
The United Motherland wrote:
No. But there are also many OTHER reasons.
You really are taking a lot out of the scope dude.
And, the United Left has offered to Cooperate with the IFC in the past many, MANY times. Only recently has that reversed due to IFC changing from totally neutral to slightly aggressive.
by The United Motherland » Thu Sep 18, 2014 4:13 pm
Roski wrote:The United Motherland wrote:No. But there are also many OTHER reasons.
You really are taking a lot out of the scope dude.
And, the United Left has offered to Cooperate with the IFC in the past many, MANY times. Only recently has that reversed due to IFC changing from totally neutral to slightly aggressive.
Who's been agressive?
Valaran?
Bratislav?
by Roski » Thu Sep 18, 2014 4:15 pm
The United Motherland wrote:
The IFC at general.
With the fall of the UL opposition, IFC and UL have been focusing on each other a lot more.
And, it mostly kicked off when one of our members were sanctioned officially by the IFC. Which although it was slightly wreckless what he did, it was officially by IFC, and Counter-Sanctions were almost about to be measured.
by The United Motherland » Thu Sep 18, 2014 4:17 pm
The real question is. Why didn't the IFC tell us so we could take care of it?Roski wrote:The United Motherland wrote:The IFC at general.
With the fall of the UL opposition, IFC and UL have been focusing on each other a lot more.
And, it mostly kicked off when one of our members were sanctioned officially by the IFC. Which although it was slightly wreckless what he did, it was officially by IFC, and Counter-Sanctions were almost about to be measured.
So why does the United Left care? One of your members attacked one of ours. We sanctioned him.
Instead of launching a conflict. So why do you care. If it were the IFC, unless everyone hated that target, he would have been left to his own resources.
by Roski » Thu Sep 18, 2014 4:20 pm
The United Motherland wrote:The real question is. Why didn't the IFC tell us so we could take care of it?Roski wrote:
So why does the United Left care? One of your members attacked one of ours. We sanctioned him.
Instead of launching a conflict. So why do you care. If it were the IFC, unless everyone hated that target, he would have been left to his own resources.
You jumped into a hasty decision without consulting us; which we could've stopped the Advance along with the enemy.
Also. IFC members support our enemies, constantly. Chazicaria, Frelsia...
by The United Motherland » Thu Sep 18, 2014 4:22 pm
What he tells you won't change a damn, naturally. Your all very free willed.Roski wrote:The United Motherland wrote:The real question is. Why didn't the IFC tell us so we could take care of it?
You jumped into a hasty decision without consulting us; which we could've stopped the Advance along with the enemy.
Also. IFC members support our enemies, constantly. Chazicaria, Frelsia...
If I remember, our Foreign minister, Val, told us to mind our business for Chazicaria.
I also remember a lot of abstains. The victory of the bill in the IFC council was by a very, VERY small margin, if I remember correctly.
The IFC as a whole does not dislike the IFC. We have a few people that are trying to be the voice of 108 memberstates.
by The United Motherland » Thu Sep 18, 2014 6:32 pm
by Glorious ReBublic of Alevstan » Thu Sep 18, 2014 6:34 pm
darn it. I need to kill them. Coup against the legitamite government and all that.
Kouralia wrote:You're in a man of war. Screw 'main efforts' and 'objectives'; sail around and look like a badass mother-fucker and sing sea shanties.
by The United Motherland » Thu Sep 18, 2014 6:34 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement