Nothing Personal, but...
Day 2,345, 10:05
•
Published in USA 
•
by
•
by Franklin Stone
My name is Franklin Stone and I am running for Congress, which is my right as an American citizens; as it is the right of my Party President to slot me in a position that will keep me out of Congress. Although I would love the opportunity to join the ‘circle jerk’ in Congress, I very much doubt I will make it and if being a figurehead for a predetermined political line is one of the requirements then I do not want it.
I wish to again point out that I speak for myself and not the WTP leadership, who has made it abundantly clear that they do not wish to cross swords with Henry Pfeiffer Arundel. From that I can only surmise that the leader of the 'Pfeifferist Cabal' has made it abundantly clear that he will do everything he can to destroy a party over a members personal game view of him.
I express some pretty drastic ideas here and elsewhere and since I am running for Congress I would like at this time to submit my name to the IES, CIA, FEC, or any other recognized ATO program, which approves citizenships and supply me with a report of their conclusions.
My request for this check is two fold, the first being I would like to help with ATO operations; but do not do so for fear of not being allowed back in country when the job is done. Second I wish to show that none of the many personas I have played has committed a censorable offense either in game or in the meta Congress, other than being the loud mouth drunk at the end of the bar who isn't afraid to express his opinion I have never done harm to America.
Immigration and IES Law
Above is a link to the text of the recently approved ‘IES Immigration Law’. Now while I think this law makes some huge leaps -if fairly applied- there are some areas which concern me.
‘This censure may only be overturned by a vote of Congress; this vote may be started by a normal proposal and vote OR the Speaker may move it directly to a vote at his own discretion; the Speaker may not overturn any such censure by his own authority.’
Since the censures are automatic the above article of the Law negates the whole idea. If you have the votes, which many ‘well connected’ citizens have; they will simply break the law and then get the censure voted down. Personally if you get censored that’s it, you’re out for the prescribed time.
‘Upon second infraction by a Congressman who has previously been censured for unlawful citizenship approval, said Congressman shall receive an automatic censure from Congress for three months thereafter.’
‘Upon third infraction by a Congressman who has previously been censured for unlawful citizenship approval, said Congressman shall receive an automatic blacklist from Congress for constituting a PTO threat.’
Why are there articles in this Law allowing for 2nd and 3rd offences, personally once a citizen has broken the Immigration Law they have shown themselves to be untrustworthy, it’s like someone's partner striking them and being forgiven; only to do it again. Such a citizen has also shown they are a PTO threat and therefore the penalty for the 1st infraction should be blacklisting and the articles allowing for 2nd and 3rd offenses redacted.
The above law was released to the open Public Congressional Proceedings and since it concerns every citizen in the game of eRepublik -not just those who play the meta game- who might wish to move to America, I feel it is important that it be brought to the attention of those who play eRepublik in game and not on a forum controlled by one political group.
It is also critical that every American citizen who wishes to take part in ATO operations ‘over there’ and and who are controversial Tin Hatters; it is quite possible that your reenter to America may be denied.
I also want to make it abundantly clear that my dislike of Henry Pfeiffer Arundel does not stem from any personal knowledge of the man behind the mask other than the replies he himself leaves.
My dislike comes from his having defected to the UK, his becoming politically active enough to become a UK Party President; then he became a UK Congress Member -twice- and finally became a member of the UK Foreign Office -just how do you calculate the damage he did to America?
Since Mr Arundel is a well known and powerful American Politician it is the fact that upon his return he refused to fill out the proper immigration forms and wait until he was approved, instead he obtained his citizenship by the very means being outlawed in the above Immigration Law; WTF?
Here is a powerful politician who obtained his citizenship illegally, considering that fact my question is, 'Why is he not blacklisted and censored from Congress?' This arrogant exhibitionst sociopath is in America illegally, runs the 2nd largest party in America and influences laws aimed at keeping citizens such as himself out of America; I mean WTF?
It is Mr Arundel’s style of Politics. Anyone who has been playing this game since 2009 knows what kind of politics he conducts, the WTP got slapped in the face with it just yesterday; simply for allowing their party members to express their opinions. Congress has passed a new Immigration Law with Mr Arundel's help, which calls for the censor of citizens who allow unapproved citizens to gain citizenship; while not punishing the citizen who obtained said illegal citizenship. A citizen who broke every immigration law to gain illegal citizenship is now helping to outlaw citizens who wish to simply emulate him, just WTF has America become?
Always remember: America
CURRAHEE!
Facebook
Twitter
Discord
Comments
It has very little to do with anything Pfeiffer might do, and everything to do with your dogged determination to ignore the answers to your questions / dig up issues that have been resoundingly closed / repeatedly call anyone who calls you out on your BS a "Pfeifferist Pawn" or some other nonsense of the sort.
Is anything I have said about him untrue and how do you judge the political damaged done by someone who is politically active in an enemy country?
A famous American Traitor was called such because he held political offices in enemy countries, because he obtain his American citizenship illegally through a PTO Congress member; commanded an MU which fought against America.
Now how is Mr Arundel's actions any less traitorous than that citizens?
This is a perfect example of it. Pfeiffer wasn't even the core of my statement. But he is the absolute core of your's.
Example; Operation Retread. Passed by a previous Congress, all your questions answered in the thread, but you continued to ask the same questions, rather than read the thread or the quoted responses to your questions.
Since this article wasn't about the Retread program, it would seem you have deviated from the OP, oh my....
"I wish to again point out that I speak for myself and not the WTP leadership, who has made it abundantly clear that they do not wish to cross swords with Henry Pfeiffer Arundel. From that I can only surmise that the leader of the 'Pfeifferist Cabal' has made it abundantly clear that he will do everything he can to destroy a party over a members personal game view of him."
Seems pretty on point. You'd be a p. cool guy if you weren't of a singular mind to run everything into the ground that you touch, reading only what you want to (even when you wrote it yourself), and asking the same questions that have been answered to you already.
TL😉R Lose the boner for being a general pain in the ass to EVERYONE, and maybe you'd be a bit more accepted.
'...I can only surmise that the leader of the 'Pfeifferist Cabal...'
Only one citizen is mentioned as the leader of a cabal of citizens, only the guilty feel a need to defend themselves; so if the shoe fits -sorry.
We still have been no where near my original question:
How is Mr Arundel's actions any less traitorous than RGR holding a political office in an enemy country?
"who has made it abundantly clear that they do not wish to cross swords with Henry Pfeiffer Arundel."
Speaking for myself, and in a limited capacity of a former WTP leader, literally couldn't give less of a flying frak if you cross swords with Pfeiffer. This statement being in your article invalidates it's entire substance as it relates to WTP, and takes what little credibility you may have and throws it into the fire.
This isn't a "defense" of WTP or anyone else, this is an indictment of you.
'...who has made it abundantly clear that they do not wish to cross swords with Henry Pfeiffer Arundel.'
'This statement being in your article invalidates it's entire substance as it relates to WTP....'
Since this article isn't about the WTP I literally have no idea what the F you are talking about. I did notice thst once again you have completely ignored the question and attacked me.
Because, as usual, your question has been asked and answered.
My comments have nothing to do with the article itself, merely an attack of the specific lines I've quoted that you wrote. The mere implication that you're being "held down" by this party, or that we avoid Pfeiffer for fear of some sort of "retribution" from him or his "cabal".
'...as it is the right of my Party President to slot me in a position that will keep me out of Congress.'
'The mere implication that you're being "held down" by this party...'
As I have admitted if my Party disagrees with what I say they have the right to slot as they wish.
'...we avoid Pfeiffer for fear of some sort of "retribution" from him or his "cabal".'
I have been told on more than one occasion by some prominent citizen, some of whom have since left the game; that they would not want to cross swords with Mr Arundel.
Whether his citizenship is legal or not is not the point, the point is he held political office as high as the Foreign Affairs Office of the enemy. Promise he didn't get there by being pro American.
And there you go, deviating from my entire point, despite the fact that you just hit the whole nail on the head.
Just because "some people" wouldn't want to cross swords with Pfeiffer, doesn't mean that WTP gives half a mute's singing career about whether you do, and your mere implication (in the lines I've quoted) throws what little credibility you had into the fire.
To further imply that we would bypass our Primary system to slot you lower than the votes you gained in the Primary is tantamount to saying that the Primary is actually a randomly generated number, rendering it meaningless. Dig your hole, dig it deep.
'To further imply that we would bypass our Primary system to slot you lower than the votes you gained in the Primary...'
Never said the WTP would, I said repeatedly that they have the 'right' to do so if they wish; makes me wonder if you have advocated that very thing and now feeling guilty.
Nah, if I wanted to, I'd just run for PP again and then say "Whoops" when you ended up on the bottom.
So in the end you would let personal feelings guide you....
NEEDS MORE GREELING!!!
Sounds like real life politics to me!
Kind of how I would picture George Washington's reaction at seeing the current state of our nation. Then again, he himself would probably end up blackballed and thrown in prison for some kind of bunk treason charge.
Funny to think that this country would not even exist had not a bunch of 'traitors' got together and financed a revolution....
As has been stated numerous times since his return, Paul did receive approval from the IES directly before he approved the citizenship request, ergo, it wasn't illegal.
You can continue to ignore the facts, but they will continue to be the facts.
...and yet Congress continues to censor others who have done exactly the same thing, even going so far as to create new Immigration Laws; Congress can't have it both ways. Don't suppose you have a screen shot of that direct approval from IES?
Why have immigration laws -laws supported by Mr Arundel- if they are going to simply be ignored?
He actually abstained, which means he didn't openly support the law. But do continue bending the truth to your whim.
So he openly abstained, doesn't men he did support it...
Stone, I don't speak for WTP Leadership either. I was saying that I don't agree with WTP's tag being placed to any blatant, rather intense ad hom like the past article. That politics has its place, but it does not, in my opinion, belong to a political party such as our own. Ignoring the fact of group approval before action, some of the stuff that goes on in this sort of thing is beyond the respectful debate we stand for.
I trust the party hasn't been threatened by Pfeiffer, either.
Wait, if you hate him so much, why would you consider him leaving and practicing politics elsewhere detrimental? i'm just very lost at that part.
Leaving and practicing politics elsewhere is absolutely fine, it's doing that and then coming back to American Politics that is wrong.
"If you have the votes, which many ‘well connected’ citizens have; they will simply break the law and then get the censure voted down. Personally if you get censored that’s it, you’re out for the prescribed time."
This is more difficult than you seem to think. People get irritated when they try hard to follow the rules and someone refuses to. A single party typically doesn't have the voting power to prevent a censure either.
"Why are there articles in this Law allowing for 2nd and 3rd offences"
Accidents happen. Plain and simple. As someone who historically has said a lot of stupidly ignorant things, you should know the value of forgiveness. Also, I wouldn't compare breaking a code in a game to beating your significant other, but that's me.
"not on a forum controlled by one political group."
The forum is not controlled by one political group, but you obviously chose not to pay attention to all the other times when people have disagreed and argued... even over the IES law.
"It is also critical that every American citizen who wishes to take part in ATO operations ‘over there’ and and who are controversial Tin Hatters; it is quite possible that your reenter to America may be denied."
Examples of people who have been denied just because they are 'controversial Tin Hatters?'
TL😉R Your method seems to be to take what little you know, twist that up a little bit, and then fill in the blanks between your supposed 'facts' with fallacy. You then publish it. Then when people disagree with you or tell you that you are wrong, you say they are 'Pfeifferist' or conspiring. Personally, not as IES Director, the way you do things raises a ton of red flags and isn't unlike the rhetoric that has formed among quite a few people shortly before they went rogue. You claim you're just the loud mouth at the end of the bar, but fail to understand that the loudmouth doesn't go home with anyone and probably gets his ass kicked quite a bit.
'This is more difficult than you seem to think. People get irritated when they try hard to follow the rules and someone refuses to. A single party typically doesn't have the voting power to prevent a censure either.'
Not saying it is either easy or hard, I am saying it should not even be an available option.
'Accidents happen. Plain and simple.'
With the IES, CIA, FBI and whoever else is in charge of security there should be no accidents, the only time accidents happen is because someone wasn't paying attention.
'The forum is not controlled by one political group...'
You're absolutely right, it is controlled by the ones who donate to the maintenance of those forums.
'Examples of people who have been denied just because they are 'controversial Tin Hatters?'
Chickensguy or whatever his name is now, other than that I would need to see past IES list, but I would bet I could point out several others.
'Then when people disagree with you or tell you that you are wrong, you say they are 'Pfeifferist' or conspiring.'
Don't believe I have directly accused any other citizen besides Pfeiffer of having a cabal of followers, I have always worked on the theory that those who are a part of his cabal will feel the need to defend themselves; has worked pretty well so far....
'Personally, not as IES Director, the way you do things raises a ton of red flags and isn't unlike the rhetoric that has formed among quite a few people shortly before they went rogue.'
Yet I have been doing this for 5 years and other than run my mouth, exactly what have I done to raise red flags?
'You claim you're just the loud mouth at the end of the bar, but fail to understand that the loudmouth doesn't go home with anyone and probably gets his ass kicked quite a bit.'
Sorry. Never went looking for someone to go home with from a bar, just seemed rather desperate to take a drunk home. Believe me, many a drunk has tried to kick my ass; sadly most of them were better drunks than they were fighters.
"Nothing personal" coming from him.
Stopped reading right there.