Viewpoint wrote:Pyrpolizer wrote:Viewpoint wrote:Firstly you are not a TC, we all know this so there is no need to keep up this lie.
Secondly no contradiction just common sense, you are a person who wants to sell us out, so your plan proposal was just that a sell out plan which got no support and was rejected by me, but my plan was one that stopped your sell out ideology therefore you rejected it, only natural for someone who has the best interests of only the Gcs at heart, you could not do anything else....now if you agreed with me I would start to get suspicious that maybe my plan was playing into your hands of sell out the TCs, so you rejecting my plan only shows that it is the best way forward for the TCs.
As for Pyro he could not hack it he had no answers thats why he backed out, how can you debate with inconsistency just read his responses he claims we are all at risk then continues to say we TC are not at risk when commiting to s olution, once he understood that he could not provide answers, contribute or be constructive he backed out, simple as that.
Actually Kikapu has proved that your proposal gives all governing power to the GCs hence it will not be approved by the TCs themselves on the first place. Still you insist that it's fine given the fact that you (personally) proposed it just to keep the current percentage of land.
So your hypocrisy is evident.
On the other hand my discussion with you was SIMPLY to check what those so called "checks and balances" that you require are. It is not me who talks about them al lthe time... it is you. Besides I have nothing to propose for any checks and balances that are already parts of any True and Democratic Federation all over the world.
In the end I discovered that those "checks and balances" you were talking about were not actually "checks and balances" but simply undemocratic racist and fascist laws.
As for what I wrote that you chose to copy-paste out of context,
The first time when I said "UNFORTUNATELY ANY SOLUTION HAS A RISK BOTH SIDES" I was referring to the case that the SOLUTION would work
The second time that I said "The ones who run the biggest risk in case of a solution are the GCs. You run no absolutely risk,the worst that would happen to the TCs is just return to todays situation." was referring to the case where the solution would COLLAPSE.
So absolutely no condradiction you were simply comparing apples with oranges.
Besides a)what was the point of discussion the risks involved or your so called "checks and balances"?
b)why did you remove the second part from my sentence? To blur the issue once again?
In a nutshell I don't consider you a worthy person to discuss anymore.
You are just too confused, and too propagandist.
At least lordo cocuk is more clear, like every every other cocuk, all he knows is cursing me to have a snake bite my tongue
You can twist and turn all you like people are not stupid as soon as you came face to face with proposals outside of your box you started like Kikapooo to bark, it rattles your cage to read another persons viewpoint, you are against "checks and balances" because you do not want to commit, conform or have to abide by the consequences, this shows you do not trust your own side and feel that they would soon renege on any new solution. I am clear as a bell its you that is confused contradictory, you show that you experience problems understanding that you have to take into consideration the other sides demands, you are now allowed to brush them to one side and ignore them...they do not go away, they just increase in size return and slap you in the face.
What the plural of cocuk..... aaaaaha got it, cocuklar.
Go play with lordo cocuk
