NSG Senate Coffee Shop [NSG Senate]

[Greater Pokarnia]

You guys have one? O.o since when?

It's not really a paramilitary. It's more of a loosely affiliated worker's militia who only provide security at party events. It's not a professional fighting force, or anything.

Yeah, it's more just for defense in case any of our opponents try to attack us.

[Costa Alegria]

Sure as hell sounds like one, Himmler.

How cute. The senator calls me "Himmler". If I am such a Nazi then, why am I vehemently opposed to paramilitaries? Those very organisations which the Nazis used to intimidate their political opponents and attack Jewish shops, homes and synagogues?

Surely if you're going to use insults, senator, you should at least do so if you know what they represent. And I'm sure I'm not a pro-paramilitary man who hates Jews and cozies up to a man with a tiny moustache and one testicle (which is more than can be had for some other politicians here).

What do you think our PSF is? Private security, on a mass scale.

It's a paramilitary, not a security force.

[Geilinor]

The Liberal Democrats certainly won't try to dismantle any parties.

Dismantling parties has never come up for discussion.

You don't think some of the more radical central-liberal senators won't try to dismantle the NIFP?

Honestly, all we want is the government to give us a guarantee that our party will be protected sufficiently.

[Unicario]

The Liberal Democrats certainly won't try to dismantle any parties.

Dismantling parties has never come up for discussion.

Senator Costa Alegria's attitude doesn't help, as many people are afraid that he will pursue the idea of dismantling the NIFP for being "a threat to democracy".

I mean, what defines a threat to democracy? A party that follows radical rightist nationalism and imperialism? Stalinism? Leninism? Those are all "radical" and therefore "threats to democracy".

[Ceannairceach]

The police force now exists, Senator. Any threats may be handled through them. Your party has a paramilitary now solely to look threatening, since the common defense is handled by the police.

More importantly, we have them to look good infront of our buildings and on parades. Our constituents expect the PSF to be there, and to support the police when the police can't be there.

So vigilantism. The PSF is not deputized, and cannot act in the place of police. So... No, they continue to have no reason to exist beyond phallic representation of the party.

[Mishmahig]

It's not really a paramilitary. It's more of a loosely affiliated worker's militia who only provide security at party events. It's not a professional fighting force, or anything.

Yeah, it's more just for defense in case any of our opponents try to attack us.

Except promises have been made to not use paramilitaries on each other. Even if parties breach this promise, there is 1) no way to RP that, and 2) no way for the offending/attacking party to get away with it without being arrested by the government.

What, then, is the point of paramilitaries?

[Geilinor]

Dismantling parties has never come up for discussion.

Senator Costa Alegria's attitude doesn't help, as many people are afraid that he will pursue the idea of dismantling the NIFP for being "a threat to democracy".

I mean, what defines a threat to democracy? A party that follows radical rightist nationalism and imperialism? Stalinism? Leninism? Those are all "radical" and therefore "threats to democracy".

We said party paramilitaries could be a threat to democracy, not your party ideology itself.

[Unicario]

Senator Costa Alegria's attitude doesn't help, as many people are afraid that he will pursue the idea of dismantling the NIFP for being "a threat to democracy".

I mean, what defines a threat to democracy? A party that follows radical rightist nationalism and imperialism? Stalinism? Leninism? Those are all "radical" and therefore "threats to democracy".

We said your party paramilitary could be a threat to democracy, not your party ideology itself.

Not now, but what if that's decided later? The vague term "threat to democracy" can be contexted to the point to where party ideologies that aren't centrist or liberal or moderate can be seen as threats.

[Mishmahig]

Dismantling parties has never come up for discussion.

You don't think some of the more radical central-liberal senators won't try to dismantle the NIFP?

Honestly, all we want is the government to give us a guarantee that our party will be protected sufficiently.

That was a quote from Unicario, who proposed an idea that certain senators might try and dismantle the NIFP.

I ask you, please quote one of these senators seriously proposing that the NIFP---actually, any party---be dismantled.

[Shrillland]

We said your party paramilitary could be a threat to democracy, not your party ideology itself.

Not now, but what if that's decided later? The vague term "threat to democracy" can be contexted to the point to where party ideologies that aren't centrist or liberal or moderate can be seen as threats.

So long as they follow the rules and adhere to constitutional authority they are not that much of a threat. It is when parties create their own bands of gangsters with weapons and try to subvert the process that the line is crossed.

[Unicario]

Not now, but what if that's decided later? The vague term "threat to democracy" can be contexted to the point to where party ideologies that aren't centrist or liberal or moderate can be seen as threats.

So long as they follow the rules and adhere to constitutional authority they are not that much of a threat. It is when parties create their own bands of gangsters with weapons and try to subvert the process that the line is crossed.

You say that now, but what happens when everyone grows tired of nationalist rhetoric coming from the right-wing and decides to squash it by labeling it a "threat"?

[Greater Pokarnia]

Yeah, it's more just for defense in case any of our opponents try to attack us.

Except promises have been made to not use paramilitaries on each other. Even if parties breach this promise, there is 1) no way to RP that, and 2) no way for the offending/attacking party to get away with it without being arrested by the government.

What, then, is the point of paramilitaries?

They should be dismantled. Though we now our opponents have promised not to attack other parties their threats of openly fighting the police should anybody attempt to dismantle their paramilitaries... well, it doesn't reassure me at least that they'll keep that promise forever, to say the least. I can't speak for the rest of my party though, and if they deem it reasonable to disband the Spartacus League while other parties maintain their forces I'll go along with it. Nonetheless the Spartacus League is hardly a paramilitary. It's essentially just a bunch of workers with rifles.

[Hathradic States]

Sure as hell sounds like one, Himmler.

How cute. The senator calls me "Himmler". If I am such a Nazi then, why am I vehemently opposed to paramilitaries? Those very organisations which the Nazis used to intimidate their political opponents and attack Jewish shops, homes and synagogues?

Surely if you're going to use insults, senator, you should at least do so if you know what they represent. And I'm sure I'm not a pro-paramilitary man who hates Jews and cozies up to a man with a tiny moustache and one testicle (which is more than can be had for some other politicians here).

The Admins requested no more insults. So I will not give my very well thought out reply.

What do you think our PSF is? Private security, on a mass scale.

It's a paramilitary, not a security force.

You can read, right? Party Security Force.

[Unicario]

Except promises have been made to not use paramilitaries on each other. Even if parties breach this promise, there is 1) no way to RP that, and 2) no way for the offending/attacking party to get away with it without being arrested by the government.

What, then, is the point of paramilitaries?

They should be dismantled. Though we now our opponents have promised not to attack other parties their threats of openly fighting the police should anybody attempt to dismantle their paramilitaries... well, it doesn't reassure me at least that they'll keep that promise forever, to say the least. I can't speak for the rest of my party though, and if they deem it reasonable to disband the Spartacus League while other parties maintain their forces I'll go along with it. Nonetheless the Spartacus League is hardly a paramilitary. It's essentially just a bunch of workers with rifles.

That's a paramilitary, senator.

[Geilinor]

We said your party paramilitary could be a threat to democracy, not your party ideology itself.

Not now, but what if that's decided later? The vague term "threat to democracy" can be contexted to the point to where party ideologies that aren't centrist or liberal or moderate can be seen as threats.

Are party ideologies an armed force?

[Costa Alegria]

The time when certain senators threaten to unleash a horde of chavs whenever an Act they don't like is proposed, is the time to bloody compromise!

Then that is why we are proposing having a gendarmerie to assist the police in case a hoard of chavs do try to do something. As I said, the time for compromise has not arrived.

Senator Costa Alegria's attitude doesn't help, as many people are afraid that he will pursue the idea of dismantling the NIFP for being "a threat to democracy".

I only wish to see paramilitaries dismantled. Your little political party is fine. No one is suggesting that we dismantle the political party at all, least of all not me. I don't know who has been saying this but it is a gross misrepresentation of my actual position towards the NIFP.

[Unicario]

Not now, but what if that's decided later? The vague term "threat to democracy" can be contexted to the point to where party ideologies that aren't centrist or liberal or moderate can be seen as threats.

Are party ideologies an armed force?

I'm not talking about armed forces, god damnit. I'm talking about /POLITICAL IDEOLOGY/.

The term "threat to democracy" is a slippery, vague slope. I just feel like that phrase can be twisted fifty different ways.

[The Realm of God]

viewtopic.php?f=25&t=237804&start=1350#wrap

Now is the time to negotiate.

[Shrillland]

So long as they follow the rules and adhere to constitutional authority they are not that much of a threat. It is when parties create their own bands of gangsters with weapons and try to subvert the process that the line is crossed.

You say that now, but what happens when everyone grows tired of nationalist rhetoric coming from the right-wing and decides to squash it by labeling it a "threat"?

Then we will appeal to the principles of Legality and hope our supreme court..... never mind. On the other hand, do we have a Supreme Court being proposed in anything on the queue? If not I may have a something to draft.

Never mind again, we do.

[Unicario]

You say that now, but what happens when everyone grows tired of nationalist rhetoric coming from the right-wing and decides to squash it by labeling it a "threat"?

Then we will appeal to the principles of Legality and hope our supreme court..... never mind. On the other hand, do we have a Supreme Court being proposed in anything on the queue? If not I may have a something to draft.

I just don't want to see parties being outlawed for radical policies.

[Geilinor]

Are party ideologies an armed force?

I'm not talking about armed forces, god damnit. I'm talking about /POLITICAL IDEOLOGY/.

The term "threat to democracy" is a slippery, vague slope. I just feel like that phrase can be twisted fifty different ways.

The Internal Security Act would not ban political ideology. It would only ban paramilitary forces.

[Unicario]

I'm not talking about armed forces, god damnit. I'm talking about /POLITICAL IDEOLOGY/.

The term "threat to democracy" is a slippery, vague slope. I just feel like that phrase can be twisted fifty different ways.

The Internal Security Act would not ban political ideology. It would only ban paramilitary forces.

I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE ISA.

I'M TALKING ABOUT AFTER THE ISA.

[Geilinor]

Then we will appeal to the principles of Legality and hope our supreme court..... never mind. On the other hand, do we have a Supreme Court being proposed in anything on the queue? If not I may have a something to draft.

I just don't want to see parties being outlawed for radical policies.

Who's going to do that? You think moderate parties will try to outlaw the right and left-wings?

[Unicario]

I just don't want to see parties being outlawed for radical policies.

Who's going to do that? You think moderate parties will try to outlaw the right and left-wings?

Yeah, I can see that happening, like most democracies IRL. They outlawed the radical parties as so to defend democracy.

[Mishmahig]

The Internal Security Act would not ban political ideology. It would only ban paramilitary forces.

I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE ISA.

I'M TALKING ABOUT AFTER THE ISA.

Then you rely on the government having a system of checks and balances to ensure that such tyranny by majority will never occur.

That, however, requires input, cooperation, and compromise, from both sides.