NationStates Jolt Archive

Delegates, wanna join the fight against morons who sue fast food joints because they burned themselves with coffee? Think the Common Sense Act II lacks, well common sense? Then please support the bill of no rights:


Description: In an effort to restore some semblance of sanity to the world, the UN shall pass this BILL OF NO RIGHTS.

ARTICLE I: You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV, or any other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything.

ARTICLE II: You do not have the right to never be offended. This world is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone, not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc., but the world is full of idiots, and probably always will be.

ARTICLE III: You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful; do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all of your relatives wealthy.

ARTICLE IV: You do not have the right to free food and housing. There are charitable people to be found, who will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes.

ARTICLE V: You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we’re just not interested in public health care.

ARTICLE VI: You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim, or kill someone, don’t be surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair.

ARTICLE VII: You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat, or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don’t be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won’t have the right to a big screen color TV or a life of leisure.

ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to demand that our children risk their lives in foreign wars to soothe your aching conscience. We hate oppressive governments and won’t lift a finger to stop you from going to fight if you’d like. However, we do not enjoy parenting the entire world and do not want to spend so much of our time battling each and every little tyrant with a military uniform and a funny hat.

ARTICLE IX: You do not have the right to a job. All of us sure want all of you to have one, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful.

ARTICLE X: You do not have the right to happiness. You have the right to pursue happiness, which by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an overabundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by things like the American Bill of Rights.

*sigh* This again.

*sigh* This again.

Heh, at least it's funny.

We don't need a resolution for that. Those are tendancies in life, and above all law.

I challenge someone to find one thing in here that doesn't already happen and that you have control over.

Ah non-libertarian governments are infamous for passing metaphoric laws against bad weather.

I thought it was pretty funny anyway.

Think the Common Sense Act II lacks, well common sense?

Global, I tried to explain this to you repeatedly yet you don't seem to listen, it's just about businsesses and such, it illegalizes police brutality lawsuits if the brutality happened while the person was in the commision of a crime. So don't go using that resolution as an example for this.

Think the Common Sense Act II lacks, well common sense?

Global, I tried to explain this to you repeatedly yet you don't seem to listen, it's just about businsesses and such, it illegalizes police brutality lawsuits if the brutality happened while the person was in the commision of a crime. So don't go using that resolution as an example for this.

So a policeman can cut off a burglar's arms without being sued? Isn't that police brutality during a crime? You should be more careful in your words.

He's always free to choose not to commit a crime.

He's always free to choose not to commit a crime.

What if that person was jaywalking and one of his enemies shoots him while he's jaywalking?

Letting cops cut off people's arms kinda gets in the way of due process.

Didn't someone already propose several times already?

Didn't someone already propose several times already?

No only once.

Didn't someone already propose several times already?

No only once.

Why not a bill of responisibility?

Didn't someone already propose several times already?

No only once.

Why not a bill of responisibility?

A bill of no rights is basically a bill of responsibility. But bill of no rights sounds better.

Didn't someone already propose several times already?

No only once.

Why not a bill of responisibility?

A bill of no rights is basically a bill of responsibility. But bill of no rights sounds better.

But you still have some rights...

ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to demand that our children risk their lives in foreign wars to soothe your aching conscience. We hate oppressive governments and won’t lift a finger to stop you from going to fight if you’d like. However, we do not enjoy parenting the entire world and do not want to spend so much of our time battling each and every little tyrant with a military uniform and a funny hat.


Well, now wait a minute. Before you all give a collective sigh, maybe someone could explain Article VIII to our current US administration? It might work. It might take a long time explaining the big words to them, but it might work. :twisted:

ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to demand that our children risk their lives in foreign wars to soothe your aching conscience. We hate oppressive governments and won’t lift a finger to stop you from going to fight if you’d like. However, we do not enjoy parenting the entire world and do not want to spend so much of our time battling each and every little tyrant with a military uniform and a funny hat.


Well, now wait a minute. Before you all give a collective sigh, maybe someone could explain Article VIII to our current US administration? It might work. It might take a long time explaining the big words to them, but it might work. :twisted:

Now that you meantion it, what about "domestic" war?

ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to demand that our children risk their lives in foreign wars to soothe your aching conscience. We hate oppressive governments and won’t lift a finger to stop you from going to fight if you’d like. However, we do not enjoy parenting the entire world and do not want to spend so much of our time battling each and every little tyrant with a military uniform and a funny hat.


Well, now wait a minute. Before you all give a collective sigh, maybe someone could explain Article VIII to our current US administration? It might work. It might take a long time explaining the big words to them, but it might work. :twisted:

Don't blame me, I was against the war in Iraq :).

ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to demand that our children risk their lives in foreign wars to soothe your aching conscience. We hate oppressive governments and won’t lift a finger to stop you from going to fight if you’d like. However, we do not enjoy parenting the entire world and do not want to spend so much of our time battling each and every little tyrant with a military uniform and a funny hat.


Well, now wait a minute. Before you all give a collective sigh, maybe someone could explain Article VIII to our current US administration? It might work. It might take a long time explaining the big words to them, but it might work. :twisted:

Don't blame me, I was against the war in Iraq :).

The US of Oppressed Possums will participate in "domestic war" as we see necessary.

Think the Common Sense Act II lacks, well common sense?

Global, I tried to explain this to you repeatedly yet you don't seem to listen, it's just about businsesses and such, it illegalizes police brutality lawsuits if the brutality happened while the person was in the commision of a crime. So don't go using that resolution as an example for this.

So a policeman can cut off a burglar's arms without being sued? Isn't that police brutality during a crime? You should be more careful in your words.

The victim was injured during the commision of a crime, and since the "Common Sense" resolution says that you cannot sue for any injury incurred during the commision of a crime that means that the victim cannot sue the police officer. So you would be right Global, the policeman can cut off the burglars arm because of the laws the common sense act made, I don't see why you said I should be more carefull with my words, it is Fantasan that should have.

I hope this makes you actually read the debates closer, I said this a million times and you still endorsed his proposal.

Think the Common Sense Act II lacks, well common sense?

Global, I tried to explain this to you repeatedly yet you don't seem to listen, it's just about businsesses and such, it illegalizes police brutality lawsuits if the brutality happened while the person was in the commision of a crime. So don't go using that resolution as an example for this.

So a policeman can cut off a burglar's arms without being sued? Isn't that police brutality during a crime? You should be more careful in your words.

The victim was injured during the commision of a crime, and since the "Common Sense" resolution says that you cannot sue for any injury incurred during the commision of a crime that means that the victim cannot sue the police officer. So you would be right Global, the policeman can cut off the burglars arm because of the laws the common sense act made, I don't see why you said I should be more carefull with my words, it is Fantasan that should have.

I hope this makes you actually read the debates closer, I said this a million times and you still endorsed his proposal.

I didn't vote for it though.

Think the Common Sense Act II lacks, well common sense?

Global, I tried to explain this to you repeatedly yet you don't seem to listen, it's just about businsesses and such, it illegalizes police brutality lawsuits if the brutality happened while the person was in the commision of a crime. So don't go using that resolution as an example for this.

So a policeman can cut off a burglar's arms without being sued? Isn't that police brutality during a crime? You should be more careful in your words.

The victim was injured during the commision of a crime, and since the "Common Sense" resolution says that you cannot sue for any injury incurred during the commision of a crime that means that the victim cannot sue the police officer. So you would be right Global, the policeman can cut off the burglars arm because of the laws the common sense act made, I don't see why you said I should be more carefull with my words, it is Fantasan that should have.

I hope this makes you actually read the debates closer, I said this a million times and you still endorsed his proposal.

I didn't vote for it though.

Yeah, but didn't you know about the UN sheeple?

Think the Common Sense Act II lacks, well common sense?

Global, I tried to explain this to you repeatedly yet you don't seem to listen, it's just about businsesses and such, it illegalizes police brutality lawsuits if the brutality happened while the person was in the commision of a crime. So don't go using that resolution as an example for this.

So a policeman can cut off a burglar's arms without being sued? Isn't that police brutality during a crime? You should be more careful in your words.

The victim was injured during the commision of a crime, and since the "Common Sense" resolution says that you cannot sue for any injury incurred during the commision of a crime that means that the victim cannot sue the police officer. So you would be right Global, the policeman can cut off the burglars arm because of the laws the common sense act made, I don't see why you said I should be more carefull with my words, it is Fantasan that should have.

I hope this makes you actually read the debates closer, I said this a million times and you still endorsed his proposal.

I didn't vote for it though.

Yes you did, and you endorsed it, even after I told you not to.

Think the Common Sense Act II lacks, well common sense?

Global, I tried to explain this to you repeatedly yet you don't seem to listen, it's just about businsesses and such, it illegalizes police brutality lawsuits if the brutality happened while the person was in the commision of a crime. So don't go using that resolution as an example for this.

So a policeman can cut off a burglar's arms without being sued? Isn't that police brutality during a crime? You should be more careful in your words.

The victim was injured during the commision of a crime, and since the "Common Sense" resolution says that you cannot sue for any injury incurred during the commision of a crime that means that the victim cannot sue the police officer. So you would be right Global, the policeman can cut off the burglars arm because of the laws the common sense act made, I don't see why you said I should be more carefull with my words, it is Fantasan that should have.

I hope this makes you actually read the debates closer, I said this a million times and you still endorsed his proposal.

I didn't vote for it though.

Yes you did, and you endorsed it, even after I told you not to.

He approved it, but he voted no. I checked the delegate votes on Common Sense Act II right before the vote closed.

Think the Common Sense Act II lacks, well common sense?

Global, I tried to explain this to you repeatedly yet you don't seem to listen, it's just about businsesses and such, it illegalizes police brutality lawsuits if the brutality happened while the person was in the commision of a crime. So don't go using that resolution as an example for this.

So a policeman can cut off a burglar's arms without being sued? Isn't that police brutality during a crime? You should be more careful in your words.

The victim was injured during the commision of a crime, and since the "Common Sense" resolution says that you cannot sue for any injury incurred during the commision of a crime that means that the victim cannot sue the police officer. So you would be right Global, the policeman can cut off the burglars arm because of the laws the common sense act made, I don't see why you said I should be more carefull with my words, it is Fantasan that should have.

I hope this makes you actually read the debates closer, I said this a million times and you still endorsed his proposal.

I didn't vote for it though.

Yes you did, and you endorsed it, even after I told you not to.

He approved it, but he voted no. I checked the delegate votes on Common Sense Act II right before the vote closed.

So why does he keep using it as an example?

I used it as an example when I said "do you believe the common sense act II lacked, well, common sense?" I opposed it.

Hmm. . .
I dislike articles IV and V, but I guess that it should at least be put to a vote.

Le's see if I can find it again . . .

lol

A rampant lack of Common Sense here.

And a inherent loss of humor.

*yawns*
This is the one resolution in this spaghetti of nonsense to set things straight a little, and people go nitpicking about it. How about tackling the major issues first, and after that start any potential nitpicking? I reckon it would be dramatically more efficient.

He's always free to choose not to commit a crime.

What if that person was jaywalking and one of his enemies shoots him while he's jaywalking?
Well, jaywalking is not a crime (at least, not in any rational, sane locale) anyway, so he wasn't injured during the commission of a crime.

He's always free to choose not to commit a crime.

What if that person was jaywalking and one of his enemies shoots him while he's jaywalking?
Well, jaywalking is not a crime (at least, not in any rational, sane locale) anyway, so he wasn't injured during the commission of a crime.

Notice that Common Sense Act didn't define a crime, it let teh government decide what is a crime by itself.

35 more approvals to go in 20 hours! Approve this people!

Please....LoL