Cyprus-Forum.com

[Sotos]

And another thing. Saying "...Cypriot permanent residents speak its official language..." is even worst than saying that "GCs can be 1/3rd of the total population". Because the total population of the TC state would also include 10s of thousands of non permanent residents from Turkey and elsewhere (Students, workers etc) as well as 10s of thousands of permanent non-Cypriot residents (from EU and elsewhere). So in practice this means that the restriction is for a significantly lower percentage in terms of the total population.

So why if you claim to not treat TC and GC posters here differently have you ONLY commented on the one small distortion I made re the Annan Plan and which I have admitted and accepted as soon as you mentioned it and IGNORE the much larger and more numerous distortions that Oceanside50 KEEPS making and basing his arguments on and refuses to accept as distortions ?

11 years past and I can't remember everything that was written in the Annan plan and I can't be bothered to read it again now. I will read the new plan if/when it comes out. The general message of Oceanside is that the Annan plan was a crappy plan for GCs... and this was my conclusion also when I read that plan 11 years ago. Does Oceanside present the plan even worst than what it really was? Maybe... I would have to re-read the plan to know for sure (and provide evidence)! I don't feel compelled to waste my time re-reading the plan to maybe prove that the Annan plan was less crappy than what Oceanside50 believes! The reason I reply to you is that your general message is that the Annan plan was a pretty good plan for GCs and you imply that we are idiots that we rejected it!

[GreekIslandGirl]

... you ONLY commented on the one small distortion I made re the Annan Plan ...

[erolz66]

11 years past and I can't remember everything that was written in the Annan plan and I can't be bothered to read it again now. I will read the new plan if/when it comes out. The general message of Oceanside is that the Annan plan was a crappy plan for GCs... and this was my conclusion also when I read that plan 11 years ago. Does Oceanside present the plan even worst than what it really was? Maybe... I would have to re-read the plan to know for sure (and provide evidence)! I don't feel compelled to waste my time re-reading the plan to maybe prove that the Annan plan was less crappy than what Oceanside50 believes! The reason I reply to you is that your general message is that the Annan plan was a pretty good plan for GCs and you imply that we are idiots that we rejected it!

Disingenuous bullshit Sotos. I never said the Annan Plan was a good plan. I have explicitly said I personaly voted against it. What I AM saying and what should not even NEED to be said in any sort of SANE world, is it, just like any FUTURE plan should be judged on what is SAYS and NOT on LIES about what it says. Oceanside50 has repeatedly LIED about what it said and I have shown those gross distortions beyond any doubt and without any need for you to 'have to read it again' by quoting the exact passages that prove such lies and distortions. The fact is when those LIES conform with your world view, you have NO interest in if they are even true or not. When I mistake 'mother tongue' to be that of the component state (and immediately correct my mistake when its pointed out) you jump on it, without any excuse about 'not being bothered to re read the Annan Plan'. Such behaviour is NOT objective. Such behaviour is the behaviour of someone who simply only sees that which supports their 'position' and ignores that which does not entirely. So keep lying to yourself that you are 'objective' and 'balanced' - it is obvious you are not.

[Oceanside50]

11 years past and I can't remember everything that was written in the Annan plan and I can't be bothered to read it again now. I will read the new plan if/when it comes out. The general message of Oceanside is that the Annan plan was a crappy plan for GCs... and this was my conclusion also when I read that plan 11 years ago. Does Oceanside present the plan even worst than what it really was? Maybe... I would have to re-read the plan to know for sure (and provide evidence)! I don't feel compelled to waste my time re-reading the plan to maybe prove that the Annan plan was less crappy than what Oceanside50 believes! The reason I reply to you is that your general message is that the Annan plan was a pretty good plan for GCs and you imply that we are idiots that we rejected it!

Disingenuous bullshit Sotos. I never said the Annan Plan was a good plan. I have explicitly said I personaly voted against it. What I AM saying and what should not even NEED to be said in any sort of SANE world, is it, just like any FUTURE plan should be judged on what is SAYS and NOT on LIES about what it says. Oceanside50 has repeatedly LIED about what it said and I have shown those gross distortions beyond any doubt and without any need for you to 'have to read it again' by quoting the exact passages that prove such lies and distortions. The fact is when those LIES conform with your world view, you have NO interest in if they are even true or not. When I mistake 'mother tongue' to be that of the component state (and immediately correct my mistake when its pointed out) you jump on it, without any excuse about 'not being bothered to re read the Annan Plan'. Such behaviour is NOT objective. Such behaviour is the behaviour of someone who simply only sees that which supports their 'position' and ignores that which does not entirely. So keep lying to yourself that you are 'objective' and 'balanced' - it is obvious you are not.

Erolz,
i didn't state any lies or tried to misrepresent the annan plan in any way. The problem may be that not too many Cypriots(tc,gc) fully understand how a federation functions with state laws and federal laws...and their difference and similarities...

lets start from the beginning..

in the USA Federal Constitution there exists the 2nd Amendment, which is federal law.. it says

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms and was adopted on December 15, 1791, as part of the first ten amendments contained in the Bill of Rights.[1][2][3][4] The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the right belongs to individuals,[5][6] while also ruling that the right is not unlimited and does not prohibit all regulation of either firearms or similar devices.[7] State and local governments are limited to the same extent as the federal government from infringing this right per the incorporation of the Bill of Rights.

it gives all citizens of the USA the right to protect themselves with guns...there are 50 constituent states in the USA plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico...there are 52 variations and interpretations of the 2nd Amendment. All 50 states plus DC and Puerto Rico have interpreted the 2nd amendment to the federal constitution differently...These are some of the variations,

Virginia

Open carry of a handgun without a permit is legal in Virginia at age 18, withstanding other applicable laws. Concealed carry of a handgun is allowed for persons who hold a valid CHP (concealed handgun permit), comply with certain restrictions, or who hold certain positions. Virginia shall issue a CHP to applicants 21 years of age or older, provided that they meet certain safety training requirements and do not have any disqualifying criminal convictions. Consuming an alcoholic beverage in ABC on-premise licensed restaurants and clubs, while carrying a concealed handgun, is prohibited; nor may any person carry a concealed handgun in a public place while under the influence of alcohol or illegal drugs. Any person permitted to carry a concealed firearm may not carry one in such manner in a public place while intoxicated. Possession of a firearm can compound the penalty for various other offenses, including illegal drug possession. Open carry while intoxicated is not addressed in the law and can presumed to be legal unless otherwise specified.[14][1][2][15]

note in Virginia it is legal to carry a concealed weapon for persons holding a concealed weapon permit....

The District of Columbia:

As of September 2014, the District of Columbia has a Restrictive May-Issue licensing policy, where applicants are required to show "good cause" for needing a concealed carry permit. Permits will only be granted to applicants who can show there is a clear, documented threat on his or her life that can only be mitigated by issuance of a concealed carry permit. The District of Columbia has had long-standing bans in place for both open and concealed carry, which were ultimately struck down as unconstitutional on July 24, 2014.[2] The lawsuit that led to this decision was originally filed on August 6, 2009, to compel the district to issue permits to carry weapons.[12] Judge Frederick Scullin, the United States District Judge who considered the case, initially didn't issue a stay of his ruling, effectively legalizing permitless open and concealed carry in the District. However, on July 29, 2014 Scullin issued an order retroactively staying his initial order until October 22, 2014.[3][4]

applicants are required to show "good cause" for needing a concealed carry permit. Permits are only granted to applicants who can show there is clear, documented threat on his or her life...

Now i ask you a question....Why are there differences in interpretation in the two laws?....if you understand this you will be on your way in understanding federalism...

[erolz66]

i didn't state any lies or tried to misrepresent the annan plan in any way.

You said / quoted

The Greek Cypriots will NEVER be permitted to return and form the majority in any of the villages they were ethnically cleansed from in 1974. Annans restrictions mean that even if a Greek Cypriot village is empty today NO Greek Cypriot will ever be allowed back unless SIXTEEN TIMES as many Turkish Cypriots are allowed to colonise it at the same time (Article 3 Para 7 of the foundation agreement). These restrictions because they are on a village-by-village basis will make it impossible for the Greek Cypriots to form any kind of viable community in the north.

This cites specifically Article 3 Para 7 of the foundation agreement. This article actually says

7. In addition, for a transitional period a constituent state may, pursuant to Constitutional Law, limit the establishment of residence by persons hailing from the other constituent state. To this effect, it may establish a moratorium until the end of the fifth year after entry into force of the Foundation Agreement, after which limitations are permissible if the number of residents hailing from the other constituent state has reached 6% of the population of a village or municipality between the 6th and 9th years and 12% between the 10th and 14th years and 18% of the population of the relevant constituent state thereafter, until the 19th year or Turkey’s accession to the European Union, whichever is earlier. After the second year, no such limitations shall apply to former inhabitants over the age of 65 accompanied by a spouse or sibling, nor to former inhabitants of specified villages.

Your claim as to what the Annan Plan said is plainly and clearly and beyond any doubt a gross distortion of what it actually says. The same is true for the claim

As the Annan plan stated, the federal and constituent courts are all equal,

The Annan plan just does not say this. It is a lie to claim it does. You can CLAIM you have not misrepresented what the Annan Plan says but the evidence is plain and clear - you did.

The problem may be that not too many Cypriots(tc,gc) fully understand how a federation functions with state laws and federal laws.

Or the problem may be that some Cypriots simply lie about what the Annan Plan actually says, deny that they have done so, do not even know or understand that the ECHR is not an organ of the EU and then proceed to try and lecture other Cypriots on how, according to them, a federation 'works'.

[repulsewarrior]

...what is most important to remember is the fact that the Plan as it had been written was not seen. It was not clear. And under those circumstances bound to fail.

No vote or yes vote, Cypriots came out to vote; there are more Cypriots than the "Greeks" and "Turks" would like to think.

[Oceanside50]

Erolz

everything is there for you, to read, and is clear as the light of day, restrictions on populations, restrictions of language, restrictions of ownership/investments and restrictions of the Majority Gc in the Republic.... you can choose to see or stay in the dark, its really your choice or you are one of these http://greece.greekreporter.com/2015/09 ... rsons/..... your grade so far F , RW C-, koLordo F-

Now on to our next topic on Federalism,

How does Federal law become state law?

[erolz66]

Erolz

everything is there for you, to read, and is clear as the light of day,

Indeed it is clear as the light of day that the claim that under the Annan plan

The Greek Cypriots will NEVER be permitted to return and form the majority in any of the villages they were ethnically cleansed from in 1974.

Is totally untrue. It would be perfectly possible under the Annan Plan for GC to once again become a majority within villages they used to be such pre 74 in, especially those that were empty when the plan would have come into force. They could not in every one but to claim they could NEVER be in ANY,is a total perversion of what the plan actually says. That is as clear as the light of day and yet you continue to insist it is not. As with

unless SIXTEEN TIMES as many Turkish Cypriots are allowed to colonise it at the same time

Again totally untrue if you read what the plan ACTUALLY says. As is the claim that

As the Annan plan stated, the federal and constituent courts are all equal,

Again just not true. Plainly and as clear as the light of day that it is not true.

or you are one of these

Would 'one of these' be someone who can not copy a URL onto a forum post without corrupting it ? Or perhaps 'one of these' is someone who does not even understand what the ECHR is and thinks it is an EU court ?

Now on to our next topic on Federalism,

You expect me to engage in a serious discussion about 'federalism' with someone who unashamedly grossly distorts what the Annan Plan actually said and then refuse to even accept they have done so when it is as plain as the light of day that they have. Someone who talks about under the Annan GC having no recourse in law beyond that of a component state's highest court, yet does not even know what the ECHR is and what it is an organ off ? Well I am afraid until you can show you are able to tell truth from lie, when it is written down in black and white and acknowledge that you showed a fundamental misunderstanding of what the ECHR is , I have little interest in such a discussion. It would be quite literally pointless with you as far as I am concerned. Still I am sure you will get a willing audience none the less so do not be too down hearted.

[Oceanside50]

Erolz

everything is there for you, to read, and is clear as the light of day, restrictions on populations, restrictions of language, restrictions of ownership/investments and restrictions of the Majority Gc in the Republic.... you can choose to see or stay in the dark, its really your choice or you are one of these http://greece.greekreporter.com/2015/09 ... rsons/..... your grade so far F , RW C-, koLordo F-

Now on to our next topic on Federalism,

How does Federal law become state law?

we begin here

[sivmetavm]

It's either federation or division. And political parties such as EDEK and DEKO should make up their minds and choose what they honestly want. Because anything else after 41 years of division is catastrophic (at least for the GC side)