Re: We Hate Gobba...
Day 857, 01:53
•
Published in Germany 
•
by
•
by Elisa Vorimberg
http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/we-hate-gobba--1270781/1/20
I am not replying to the entire article, since I don't know anything about the discussions between MG and Konrad.
However, Konrad implied in that article that Gobba's actions are justified. I don't know if this implication was intentional, but it was very angering to read and I feel the need to write this.
Also it clearly needs to be said, since the OMG supported Gobba to get into congress.
Call everyone that disagrees with you a populist if you wish Konrad, but this is honestly what I believe, regardless of what is popular.
First of all, I was in Gobba's administration, and while we didn't agree on everything, I certainly respected him as a leader. Obviously he has lost my respect.
From what Konrad said, it sounds like the story is that Gobba believes he is righteously holding the money to protect it from an administration that will waste it.
Gobba was president when much of this treasury was built up, so I can see how he might feel some possession over the money.
However this is a false way of thinking! The money is not Gobba's, it is Germany's. Gobba was entrusted as president, and as president he lead the country. This does not give him any claim over that countries money.
The money is Germany's. Germany elected a new leader. This is a democracy! If a majority wants this person to be entrusted with the money, then that is what must happen.
Not only is Gobba's action a blatantly incorrect way of thinking, but it also threatens the very foundation of our elections.
The people should be able to elect whoever they want, without having to worry about how much a previous president disagrees with the new one.
To review:
The money was not Gobba's. It was Germany's.
Germany wanted the money given to the new president.
By taking the money, even temporarily, Gobba has broken a fundamental rule of democracy.
I personally believe that such an action is inexcusable.
-Elisa Vorimberg
I am not replying to the entire article, since I don't know anything about the discussions between MG and Konrad.
However, Konrad implied in that article that Gobba's actions are justified. I don't know if this implication was intentional, but it was very angering to read and I feel the need to write this.
Also it clearly needs to be said, since the OMG supported Gobba to get into congress.
Call everyone that disagrees with you a populist if you wish Konrad, but this is honestly what I believe, regardless of what is popular.
First of all, I was in Gobba's administration, and while we didn't agree on everything, I certainly respected him as a leader. Obviously he has lost my respect.
From what Konrad said, it sounds like the story is that Gobba believes he is righteously holding the money to protect it from an administration that will waste it.
Gobba was president when much of this treasury was built up, so I can see how he might feel some possession over the money.
However this is a false way of thinking! The money is not Gobba's, it is Germany's. Gobba was entrusted as president, and as president he lead the country. This does not give him any claim over that countries money.
The money is Germany's. Germany elected a new leader. This is a democracy! If a majority wants this person to be entrusted with the money, then that is what must happen.
Not only is Gobba's action a blatantly incorrect way of thinking, but it also threatens the very foundation of our elections.
The people should be able to elect whoever they want, without having to worry about how much a previous president disagrees with the new one.
To review:
The money was not Gobba's. It was Germany's.
Germany wanted the money given to the new president.
By taking the money, even temporarily, Gobba has broken a fundamental rule of democracy.
I personally believe that such an action is inexcusable.
-Elisa Vorimberg
Facebook
Twitter
Discord
Comments
VOTE!
vote!
"Gobba was president when much of this treasury was built up, so I can see how he might feel some possession over the money."
Sorry, this is wrong.
The main part of the Gold (541 Gold) was collected by the MoE (me) to liberate eGermany from the poles. Konrad gave gobba access to the Org that held the money and gobba took it.
100% of the DEM was printed by the Poles during the PTO and was secured by Hungary. (and I don't want to discuss about the missing DEMs...)
Sowas von voted von mir ! Danke Elisa
true words!
Voted.
Good article Elisa!
indeed very true
vote!
Voted.
Signed and Voted
"Konrad implied in that article that Gobba's actions are justified. I don't know if this implication was intentional, but it was very angering to read and I feel the need to write this."
"From what Konrad said, it sounds like the story is that Gobba believes he is righteously holding the money to protect it from an administration that will waste it. "
I am disappointed in you Elisa. Read my article and show me where I said he is just to take the money and that I praised it. Unlike other articles which ofter a good counter-point, this is just lies.
This article also fails to address the gold. You still want to talk about it and be petty about it or do you and others want to work together and get the money back.
This article is a poor attempt at populism that does not even have one shred of truth in it.
voted
@bernhardms
I was referring mostly to the DEM, which is in many ways much more valuable than the gold.
@Konrad
I hope you come to your senses soon... This has nothing to do with populism. Your accusation that I am a liar is NOT OK.
It's getting to the point where you shouldn't even be dignified with a response.
Then tell me where I said it is justify for Gobba to take German moneys in my article?
In Paragraph 4 towards the middle part I state and I quote
"that I did not support Gobba taking the gold without my permission or the permission of the eGerman people. It is clear and for those who said that I do, you are indeed wrong or you are lying. Gobba is wrong on this point."
So where do I "implied in that article that Gobba's actions are justified."
Maybe you misunderstand or misread and in that case we have a misunderstanding. If that is the case we can apologize to each other and go on from there. If not the I CAN say you are lying since I never said Gobba is justify to take the money.
The use of "blame" as the title image, and the general sarcasm:
"We hate Gobba, he is nothing but a traitor, thief, and the sums of all of eGermany's problem. Heretic, evil and demonic. Gobba is the boogieman!!!!!"
Also the general tone of your article implied that Gobba's actions can be justified. My point here is that they can not.
I stated at the top of this article that I don't know for sure if you intended to imply these things.
I don't see how this could possibly be interpreted as me lying.
The thing is that I did not say that it can. I am saying this reason and I did state the end does not justify the means... That means you did not read it carefully.
Bottom line - what you are saying it not consistent with what you have written.
Evidently you need to be more careful with your words.
Regardless, the OMG allowed Gobba to run for congress, so this still needed to be written.