NationStates Jolt Archive

The subject line here pretty much says it all, however, I urge voting against this Resolution, as it infringes on individuak nations' soverignty...as well as any Regions (such as ours) that have worked hard to pass our own Regional Constitutions!

Not that I oppose the ideas contained within CATO...but I do oppose the infringement upon, specifically, my Region's Regional Constitution.

Incidentally, CATO isn't enforceable, anyway, just like any other UN Resolution, and, if it passes, we shall, of course, immediately pass laws that put us back where we were before this buttinsky piece of crap was proposed.

The subject line here pretty much says it all, however, I urge voting against this Resolution, as it infringes on individuak nations' soverignty...as well as any Regions (such as ours) that have worked hard to pass our own Regional Constitutions!

Not that I oppose the ideas contained within CATO...but I do oppose the infringement upon, specifically, my Region's Regional Constitution.

Incidentally, CATO isn't enforceable, anyway, just like any other UN Resolution, and, if it passes, we shall, of course, immediately pass laws that out us back where we were before this buttinsky piece of crap was proposed.

Labrador I've never heard you support national soverengity before.
Do you just oppose everything I propose?

Only rights are sovereign. Nations that refuse to grant their individuals inalienable rights lose their sovereignity.

Vote against the current UN resolution! It is an act to spread democracy to the world.

The subject line here pretty much says it all, however, I urge voting against this Resolution, as it infringes on individuak nations' soverignty...as well as any Regions (such as ours) that have worked hard to pass our own Regional Constitutions!

Not that I oppose the ideas contained within CATO...but I do oppose the infringement upon, specifically, my Region's Regional Constitution.

Incidentally, CATO isn't enforceable, anyway, just like any other UN Resolution, and, if it passes, we shall, of course, immediately pass laws that out us back where we were before this buttinsky piece of crap was proposed.

Labrador I've never heard you support national soverengity before.
Do you just oppose everything I propose?

No. I oppose this because it wold seem to override our Regional Constitution!
Our Region was created by, for and AS a haven for liberal nations...we do not want conservo-creeps! And conservo-creeps, per our Constitution...have no voting rights.
Were it actually enforceable (and it isn't) your proposal would give voting rights to those we wish to deny those rights to.

We did NOT work hard to create a Region that is a haven for us, to have it taken over and subverted by conservo-creeps! We want to be left alone in our haven!

The subject line here pretty much says it all, however, I urge voting against this Resolution, as it infringes on individuak nations' soverignty...as well as any Regions (such as ours) that have worked hard to pass our own Regional Constitutions!

Not that I oppose the ideas contained within CATO...but I do oppose the infringement upon, specifically, my Region's Regional Constitution.

Incidentally, CATO isn't enforceable, anyway, just like any other UN Resolution, and, if it passes, we shall, of course, immediately pass laws that out us back where we were before this buttinsky piece of crap was proposed.

Labrador I've never heard you support national soverengity before.
Do you just oppose everything I propose?

No. I oppose this because it wold seem to override our Regional Constitution!
Our Region was created by, for and AS a haven for liberal nations...we do not want conservo-creeps! And conservo-creeps, per our Constitution...have no voting rights.
Were it actually enforceable (and it isn't) your proposal would give voting rights to those we wish to deny those rights to.

We did NOT work hard to create a Region that is a haven for us, to have it taken over and subverted by conservo-creeps! We want to be left alone in our haven!

Wait... so conservatives don't have the right to vote in your region? So much for "democracy"!

At least say in the title that it's a voet against national sovereignity... this is a vote for individual sovereignity since it increases the power of the invidiaul..

The subject line here pretty much says it all, however, I urge voting against this Resolution, as it infringes on individuak nations' soverignty...as well as any Regions (such as ours) that have worked hard to pass our own Regional Constitutions!

Not that I oppose the ideas contained within CATO...but I do oppose the infringement upon, specifically, my Region's Regional Constitution.

Incidentally, CATO isn't enforceable, anyway, just like any other UN Resolution, and, if it passes, we shall, of course, immediately pass laws that out us back where we were before this buttinsky piece of crap was proposed.

Labrador I've never heard you support national soverengity before.
Do you just oppose everything I propose?

Only rights are sovereign. Nations that refuse to grant their individuals inalienable rights lose their sovereignity.

Only in your opinion!! We have, in our Region, virtually criminalised Conservative thought. And loss of voting priveleges is the prescribed punishment for the criminal act of conservative thoughts and actions.

We do not want conservo-creeps ruining our beautiful Region.

The subject line here pretty much says it all, however, I urge voting against this Resolution, as it infringes on individuak nations' soverignty...as well as any Regions (such as ours) that have worked hard to pass our own Regional Constitutions!

Not that I oppose the ideas contained within CATO...but I do oppose the infringement upon, specifically, my Region's Regional Constitution.

Incidentally, CATO isn't enforceable, anyway, just like any other UN Resolution, and, if it passes, we shall, of course, immediately pass laws that out us back where we were before this buttinsky piece of crap was proposed.

Labrador I've never heard you support national soverengity before.
Do you just oppose everything I propose?

Only rights are sovereign. Nations that refuse to grant their individuals inalienable rights lose their sovereignity.

Only in your opinion!! We have, in our Region, virtually criminalised Conservative thought. And loss of voting priveleges is the prescribed punishment for the criminal act of conservative thoughts and actions.

We do not want conservo-creeps ruining our beautiful Region.

Your region sounds much like more a dictatorship than a liberal paradise.

My region is a dictators haven. We invade for fun.

The subject line here pretty much says it all, however, I urge voting against this Resolution, as it infringes on individuak nations' soverignty...as well as any Regions (such as ours) that have worked hard to pass our own Regional Constitutions!

Not that I oppose the ideas contained within CATO...but I do oppose the infringement upon, specifically, my Region's Regional Constitution.

Incidentally, CATO isn't enforceable, anyway, just like any other UN Resolution, and, if it passes, we shall, of course, immediately pass laws that out us back where we were before this buttinsky piece of crap was proposed.

Labrador I've never heard you support national soverengity before.
Do you just oppose everything I propose?

No. I oppose this because it wold seem to override our Regional Constitution!
Our Region was created by, for and AS a haven for liberal nations...we do not want conservo-creeps! And conservo-creeps, per our Constitution...have no voting rights.
Were it actually enforceable (and it isn't) your proposal would give voting rights to those we wish to deny those rights to.

We did NOT work hard to create a Region that is a haven for us, to have it taken over and subverted by conservo-creeps! We want to be left alone in our haven!

Wait... so conservatives don't have the right to vote in your region? So much for "democracy"!

At least say in the title that it's a voet against national sovereignity... this is a vote for individual sovereignity since it increases the power of the invidiaul..

We never CLAIMED to be a democracy!
We are a LIBERAL DEMOCRACY. It is a different form of gvernment than the democracy you are familiar with.
We have our debates/disagreements, and we vote...but we do NOT allow conservatives to enter the debate...we don't want to hear from them!

We never CLAIMED to be a democracy!
We are a LIBERAL DEMOCRACY. It is a different form of gvernment than the democracy you are familiar with.
We have our debates/disagreements, and we vote...but we do NOT allow conservatives to enter the debate...we don't want to hear from them!

You insult every self-respecting Liberal. Free speech is an important part of just about every liberal ideology. This is like calling Cuba a "communist democracy" because they have legitimate debates where only communists are allowed to partake in.

You know that your authoritarian-leftists are greatly outnumbered by sensible people, so you want to maintain your grip on power by not letting them partake in teh action. Your region is taxation without representation at its ugliest. On the other hand, in my country ypu get representation without taxation. Pursuant to Article VIII, 70% of your citizens move to my country :lol:

The subject line here pretty much says it all, however, I urge voting against this Resolution, as it infringes on individuak nations' soverignty...as well as any Regions (such as ours) that have worked hard to pass our own Regional Constitutions!

Not that I oppose the ideas contained within CATO...but I do oppose the infringement upon, specifically, my Region's Regional Constitution.

Incidentally, CATO isn't enforceable, anyway, just like any other UN Resolution, and, if it passes, we shall, of course, immediately pass laws that out us back where we were before this buttinsky piece of crap was proposed.

Labrador I've never heard you support national soverengity before.
Do you just oppose everything I propose?

Only rights are sovereign. Nations that refuse to grant their individuals inalienable rights lose their sovereignity.

Only in your opinion!! We have, in our Region, virtually criminalised Conservative thought. And loss of voting priveleges is the prescribed punishment for the criminal act of conservative thoughts and actions.

We do not want conservo-creeps ruining our beautiful Region.

Your region sounds much like more a dictatorship than a liberal paradise.
After a fashion...this is precisely correct! We are a dictatorship...but we are a benign one. We are a willing dictatorship...and which grants most rights to most citizens. We simply do not allow conservo-creeps to have voice.
They are welcome to live there, but they do so knowing they have, nor will they EVER have...any voice in ur Regional governmental affairs.
We will not allow ourselves to be ruined...the way the U.S. is currently being ruined!

After a fashion...this is precisely correct! We are a dictatorship...but we are a benign one. We are a willing dictatorship...and which grants most rights to most citizens. We simply do not allow conservo-creeps to have voice.
They are welcome to live there, but they do so knowing they have, nor will they EVER have...any voice in ur Regional governmental affairs.
We will not allow ourselves to be ruined...the way the U.S. is currently being ruined!

Once your citizens start getting more Nikes and more MTV fewer and fewer will believe in your dictatorial "liberal" ideologies. A smaller and smaller minority will be in power and eventually they will collapse on top of themselves and democracy will be restored.

We never CLAIMED to be a democracy!
We are a LIBERAL DEMOCRACY. It is a different form of gvernment than the democracy you are familiar with.
We have our debates/disagreements, and we vote...but we do NOT allow conservatives to enter the debate...we don't want to hear from them!

You insult every self-respecting Liberal. Free speech is an important part of just about every liberal ideology. This is like calling Cuba a "communist democracy" because they have legitimate debates where only communists are allowed to partake in.

You know that your authoritarian-leftists are greatly outnumbered by sensible people, so you want to maintain your grip on power by not letting them partake in teh action. Your region is taxation without representation at its ugliest. On the other hand, in my country ypu get representation without taxation. Pursuant to Article VIII, 70% of your citizens move to my country :lol:

Actually, your comparison of our Region to Cuba is not too far off! We are not cruel to our citizenry...we do allow debate and votes. We do not, however, allow any real threat to the power structure of our Region. This is to ensure we remain in a liberal haven. We worked hard to create just such a place for ourselves, and we wish to keep it the way we intended it to be...a place for LIBERALS only!
We'd love to have done it differently, but it seems that conservo-creeps who play this game go out of their way to screw with liberals...so we screwed right back!
If they would simply leave us alone, our authoritarian-leftist governmental structure would not be necessary.

Alas, the conservo-creeps will not leave us alone to enjoy the commune we created.

We never CLAIMED to be a democracy!
We are a LIBERAL DEMOCRACY. It is a different form of gvernment than the democracy you are familiar with.
We have our debates/disagreements, and we vote...but we do NOT allow conservatives to enter the debate...we don't want to hear from them!

You insult every self-respecting Liberal. Free speech is an important part of just about every liberal ideology. This is like calling Cuba a "communist democracy" because they have legitimate debates where only communists are allowed to partake in.

You know that your authoritarian-leftists are greatly outnumbered by sensible people, so you want to maintain your grip on power by not letting them partake in teh action. Your region is taxation without representation at its ugliest. On the other hand, in my country ypu get representation without taxation. Pursuant to Article VIII, 70% of your citizens move to my country :lol:

Actually, your comparison of our Region to Cuba is not too far off! We are not cruel to our citizenry...we do allow debate and votes. We do not, however, allow any real threat to the power structure of our Region. This is to ensure we remain in a liberal haven. We worked hard to create just such a place for ourselves, and we wish to keep it the way we intended it to be...a place for LIBERALS only!
We'd love to have done it differently, but it seems that conservo-creeps who play this game go out of their way to screw with liberals...so we screwed right back!
If they would simply leave us alone, our authoritarian-leftist governmental structure would not be necessary.

Alas, the conservo-creeps will not leave us alone to enjoy the commune we created.

They are free to come to my country... or is your nation so backwards there are no more airplanes?

Keeping people who disagree with you from voting, you are just as bad as the Nazis. As soon as your quality of life goes up the slightest bit, your government will disintegrate like so many before it.

After a fashion...this is precisely correct! We are a dictatorship...but we are a benign one. We are a willing dictatorship...and which grants most rights to most citizens. We simply do not allow conservo-creeps to have voice.
They are welcome to live there, but they do so knowing they have, nor will they EVER have...any voice in ur Regional governmental affairs.
We will not allow ourselves to be ruined...the way the U.S. is currently being ruined!

Once your citizens start getting more Nikes and more MTV fewer and fewer will believe in your dictatorial "liberal" ideologies. A smaller and smaller minority will be in power and eventually they will collapse on top of themselves and democracy will be restored.

Our citizens already GET Nikes and MTV and anything else most Americans have come to enjoy. What they do not get is shitheads like the PNAC crowd coming in to screw it all up!
They WANT the protection we afford them!
Everybody who WANTS to work in our Region has a job. Say the same for the U.S. I dare you!!

We never CLAIMED to be a democracy!
We are a LIBERAL DEMOCRACY. It is a different form of gvernment than the democracy you are familiar with.
We have our debates/disagreements, and we vote...but we do NOT allow conservatives to enter the debate...we don't want to hear from them!

You insult every self-respecting Liberal. Free speech is an important part of just about every liberal ideology. This is like calling Cuba a "communist democracy" because they have legitimate debates where only communists are allowed to partake in.

You know that your authoritarian-leftists are greatly outnumbered by sensible people, so you want to maintain your grip on power by not letting them partake in teh action. Your region is taxation without representation at its ugliest. On the other hand, in my country ypu get representation without taxation. Pursuant to Article VIII, 70% of your citizens move to my country :lol:

Actually, your comparison of our Region to Cuba is not too far off! We are not cruel to our citizenry...we do allow debate and votes. We do not, however, allow any real threat to the power structure of our Region. This is to ensure we remain in a liberal haven. We worked hard to create just such a place for ourselves, and we wish to keep it the way we intended it to be...a place for LIBERALS only!
We'd love to have done it differently, but it seems that conservo-creeps who play this game go out of their way to screw with liberals...so we screwed right back!
If they would simply leave us alone, our authoritarian-leftist governmental structure would not be necessary.

Alas, the conservo-creeps will not leave us alone to enjoy the commune we created.

They are free to come to my country... or is your nation so backwards there are no more airplanes?

Keeping people who disagree with you from voting, you are just as bad as the Nazis. As soon as your quality of life goes up the slightest bit, your government will disintegrate like so many before it.

Quite correct...they are free to come to your country. The citizens who wold do so are the citizens we don't want anyway! :lol:

After a fashion...this is precisely correct! We are a dictatorship...but we are a benign one. We are a willing dictatorship...and which grants most rights to most citizens. We simply do not allow conservo-creeps to have voice.
They are welcome to live there, but they do so knowing they have, nor will they EVER have...any voice in ur Regional governmental affairs.
We will not allow ourselves to be ruined...the way the U.S. is currently being ruined!

Once your citizens start getting more Nikes and more MTV fewer and fewer will believe in your dictatorial "liberal" ideologies. A smaller and smaller minority will be in power and eventually they will collapse on top of themselves and democracy will be restored.

Our citizens already GET Nikes and MTV and anything else most Americans have come to enjoy. What they do not get is shitheads like the PNAC crowd coming in to screw it all up!
They WANT the protection we afford them!
Everybody who WANTS to work in our Region has a job. Say the same for the U.S. I dare you!!

How do they have Nikes and MTV? Your economy is in collapse. According to the Nationstates GDP Calculator, you have a p-c income of $3,000. That's not really enough to afford many of the US's luxuries.

And PNAC has the right to free speech just like you do.

After a fashion...this is precisely correct! We are a dictatorship...but we are a benign one. We are a willing dictatorship...and which grants most rights to most citizens. We simply do not allow conservo-creeps to have voice.
They are welcome to live there, but they do so knowing they have, nor will they EVER have...any voice in ur Regional governmental affairs.
We will not allow ourselves to be ruined...the way the U.S. is currently being ruined!

Once your citizens start getting more Nikes and more MTV fewer and fewer will believe in your dictatorial "liberal" ideologies. A smaller and smaller minority will be in power and eventually they will collapse on top of themselves and democracy will be restored.

Our citizens already GET Nikes and MTV and anything else most Americans have come to enjoy. What they do not get is shitheads like the PNAC crowd coming in to screw it all up!
They WANT the protection we afford them!
Everybody who WANTS to work in our Region has a job. Say the same for the U.S. I dare you!!

How do they have Nikes and MTV? Your economy is in collapse. According to the Nationstates GDP Calculator, you have a p-c income of $3,000. That's not really enough to afford many of the US's luxuries.

And PNAC has the right to free speech just like you do.

It certainly is enough! Like any self-respecting commune, we have price controls in place to prevent greedy capitalists from running away with all the goodies!

It certainly is enough! Like any self-respecting commune, we have price controls in place to prevent greedy capitalists from running away with all the goodies!
And FUCK PNAC!!!
And fuck PNAC'S "free speech" rights, too!!
They are NOT free to LIE, CHEAT and STEAL...and unneccessarily kill 300 of OUR soldiers!!

I know they don't have the right ot cheat and steal or invade Iraq. But they do have the right to lie. It's free speech. There's a clear distinction between free speech and action.

And Steph... mod alert! Flaming!

ahem... ...well, that was interesting-
anyhow, I cant support this because it compromises the rights of the Aviean Empire to govern it's own people, and it's also a blatent attempt to strenghten the parasite of world demoracy.

Idumea has voted no on CATO, not because we resent democracy being forced onto our nation - indeed we love democracy and have embraced it at home. We vote no on CATO BECAUSE we love democracy, and believe it is a contradiction to force its ideals upon other nation states. Democracy will take root in any country that is ready for it; forcing nations to accept democracy before they are ready will breed only resentment and hatred against the NSUN. Please take a lesson from the failed foriegn policies of the world's democracies on this point. The west was successful in the cold war not by physically forcing the former Soviet Union to adopt democracy, but by allowing the the two competing systems of government to work to their logical conclusions, and in the process created new allies. The west has, on the other hand, created breeding grounds of terrorist activity by physically overthrowing governments and replacing them with "democracies" (and at times overthrowing democracies and replacing them with dictatorships). The lesson should be to stop actively meddling, to apply economic pressures when the opportunities arise, and to never, ever, attempt to force another nation to adopt a method of government that they have not chosen freely and have not come to naturally.

Vote NO on this wrongheaded, dangerous proposal! Do not allow the NSUN to become like a dictatorship, forcing its preferred system of government on the rest of the world!

Joeseph Harrington, UN Delegate
The Free Land of Idumea

Vote against the current UN resolution! It is an act to spread democracy to the world.

This is wrong! If a nation is happy with the type of government that they have then why allow extreme parties to view their opinions and mabye even get into power!

After a fashion...this is precisely correct! We are a dictatorship...but we are a benign one. We are a willing dictatorship...and which grants most rights to most citizens. We simply do not allow conservo-creeps to have voice.
They are welcome to live there, but they do so knowing they have, nor will they EVER have...any voice in ur Regional governmental affairs.
We will not allow ourselves to be ruined...the way the U.S. is currently being ruined!

I represent a very liberal nation. Conservatives do not come to power in Goobergunchian not because we repress them but because our populace is smart enough to see their fallacies. We have voted FOR this resolution.

Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
DU Regional Delegate

This resolution assumes that democracy is the best form of government. Not all members of the UN are democratic countries and therefore should not be forced by such a resolution to conform to democratic principles. Communists, oligarchies, kingdoms are but a few different forms of government represented in the UN. Forcing democratic principles on all countries is ethnocentric and therefore wrong.

While individual civil rights should be protected as they center of peoples natural rights as human beings, assuming that all tax payers should be represented in government assumes democratic principles which cannot and should not be enforced. What about tribal socieities? Consider the fact for a moment that democracy may not work for all cultures and communities and remove the democratic philosophical leanings of this resolution.

While Puerto Melanieland is a democratic nation, we refuse to support a resolution that does not recognize other political philosophies and other nations ways of governing. This resolution is ethnocentric and offensive.

Vote against the current UN resolution! It is an act to spread democracy to the world.

This is wrong! If a nation is happy with the type of government that they have then why allow extreme parties to view their opinions and mabye even get into power!

If an extreme political party can get into power, then people obviously aren't happy with their current govenrment.

I heard soemone post in reply to the topic headder that only rights are soverign. NOT TRUE! When my membership is finalized, I Will vote agaisnt this bill. A nation has rights to do what it will, so long as it does not infringe on BASIC human rights. For instance,t eh passage about no sponsorship of religion....

Freedom and Pride is a nation founded upon Chrsitian principles, and as such our government embraces Chrsitianity as our moral guideline. We do nto however, force anyone to be or a certain religion. If we did, then we woudl be going agaisnt the soverignty of rights. A nation has its own soverignty to determine the course of its affairs. A [erson ahs soverign rights to determine hsi course. THank you.

*gets off soapbox*

At least say in the title that it's a voet against national sovereignity... this is a vote for individual sovereignity since it increases the power of the invidiaul..

We never CLAIMED to be a democracy!
We are a LIBERAL DEMOCRACY. It is a different form of gvernment than the democracy you are familiar with.
We have our debates/disagreements, and we vote...but we do NOT allow conservatives to enter the debate...we don't want to hear from them!
Labrador, I hate conservatives just as much as much as the next person, but it sounds a lot like you're just curtailing their rights. Whats the difference between that and a dictatorship that curtails the rights of blacks, or gays, or liberals?
Thats not a beneovelent dictatorship, thats just a dictatorship.

The ideals of Democracy are those of a free people. It is contrary to force Democracy upon anybody.

While the people of Apleisiastaclesia support Democracy, we do not support the unlawful interference in another country's government processes without consent.

Give Democracy to those that ask of it. Do not force it down the throats of those who do not.

ahem... ...well, that was interesting-
anyhow, I cant support this because it compromises the rights of the Aviean Empire to govern it's own people, and it's also a blatent attempt to strenghten the parasite of world demoracy.

Right on! You said it.

And I just love the way someone runs to mods immediately, just because someone disagrees. Fine, I'll take the last posting down then.

After a fashion...this is precisely correct! We are a dictatorship...but we are a benign one. We are a willing dictatorship...and which grants most rights to most citizens. We simply do not allow conservo-creeps to have voice.
They are welcome to live there, but they do so knowing they have, nor will they EVER have...any voice in ur Regional governmental affairs.
We will not allow ourselves to be ruined...the way the U.S. is currently being ruined!

I represent a very liberal nation. Conservatives do not come to power in Goobergunchian not because we repress them but because our populace is smart enough to see their fallacies. We have voted FOR this resolution.

Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
DU Regional Delegate

You're missing my point. Conservo-creeps don't come to power in Labrador, either...and for the same reason!
What I am concerned with is the power structure of our Region! Only by constitutionally denying conservatives voice in our Regional affairs can we insure a group of conservative nations won't come in...pretend to be everything they aren;t...and grab power.
See, this extreme act would not be necessary if the conservatives who play this game would keave us liberals alone, but they won't.

At least say in the title that it's a voet against national sovereignity... this is a vote for individual sovereignity since it increases the power of the invidiaul..

We never CLAIMED to be a democracy!
We are a LIBERAL DEMOCRACY. It is a different form of gvernment than the democracy you are familiar with.
We have our debates/disagreements, and we vote...but we do NOT allow conservatives to enter the debate...we don't want to hear from them!
Labrador, I hate conservatives just as much as much as the next person, but it sounds a lot like you're just curtailing their rights. Whats the difference between that and a dictatorship that curtails the rights of blacks, or gays, or liberals?
Thats not a beneovelent dictatorship, thats just a dictatorship.

Firstly, I am doing it to protect my citizens, (most of whom are considered minorities in the rest of the world) from the oppression conservatism brings. That is why I say we are a benevolent dictatorship.
Secondly, yes...you are quite correct...I AM curtailiing the rights of conservatives! Damn right I am! Let THEM see for once what oppression feels like!!
DAMN Conservo-creeps!!
Shoe don't feel so good on the other foot, does it?

Alas, the conservo-creeps will not leave us alone to enjoy the commune we created.

Ah, but that's the risk inherent in UN membership, isn't it?

At least say in the title that it's a voet against national sovereignity... this is a vote for individual sovereignity since it increases the power of the invidiaul..

We never CLAIMED to be a democracy!
We are a LIBERAL DEMOCRACY. It is a different form of gvernment than the democracy you are familiar with.
We have our debates/disagreements, and we vote...but we do NOT allow conservatives to enter the debate...we don't want to hear from them!
Labrador, I hate conservatives just as much as much as the next person, but it sounds a lot like you're just curtailing their rights. Whats the difference between that and a dictatorship that curtails the rights of blacks, or gays, or liberals?
Thats not a beneovelent dictatorship, thats just a dictatorship.

Firstly, I am doing it to protect my citizens, (most of whom are considered minorities in the rest of the world) from the oppression conservatism brings. That is why I say we are a benevolent dictatorship.
Secondly, yes...you are quite correct...I AM curtailiing the rights of conservatives! Damn right I am! Let THEM see for once what oppression feels like!!
DAMN Conservo-creeps!!
Shoe don't feel so good on the other foot, does it?

Oh I see. Its just about revenge. Like Moby Dick or something. An eye for an eye. Well whats the point of protecting one group of people, if you do it at the expense of another? Thats a facist mentality. How can you claim to be protecting minorities if you're creating repression?

Of course the shoe feels good when you're wearing it. But its a shoe made for the Right foot, and it fits badly when worn on the Left, and it looks ugly.

Anyway, good luck Ahab.

ahem... ...well, that was interesting-
anyhow, I cant support this because it compromises the rights of the Aviean Empire to govern it's own people, and it's also a blatent attempt to strenghten the parasite of world demoracy.

Right on! You said it.

And I just love the way someone runs to mods immediately, just because someone disagrees. Fine, I'll take the last posting down then.

Firstly, good Lab, you were flaming and deserved your mod alert. You should in the name of good manners apologize immediately to the representative from the Global Market.

Secondly, "the parasite of world democracy"?!?!?! I may be wrong, but I do not think that parasite is the correct metaphor in this case. The world's democracies are most often the world's production engines, propping up more tribal and/or socialist countries with loans and humanitarian aid. Parasitic organisms, on the other hand, typically do not produce anything, but most often are recipients of the work and its byproducts done by others. Global Market certainly is not a parasitic country - it is a completely self-contained economic powerhouse seeking only to make the world a better place through democratic means and active participation in world events.

Though Idumea is not supportive of this resolution, it certainly is supportive of Global Market and many of the ideals that this great nation represents. I take you to task, Labrador, and you too, Aviea, for your overheated rhetoric, and respectfully move that apologies are tendered immediately in order to maintain the decorum and civility of the United Nations forum.

Respectfully,

Holly Chaplin, Delegate
The Free Land of Idumea

ahem... ...well, that was interesting-
anyhow, I cant support this because it compromises the rights of the Aviean Empire to govern it's own people, and it's also a blatent attempt to strenghten the parasite of world demoracy.

Right on! You said it.

And I just love the way someone runs to mods immediately, just because someone disagrees. Fine, I'll take the last posting down then.

Firstly, good Lab, you were flaming and deserved your mod alert. You should in the name of good manners apologize immediately to the representative from the Global Market.

Secondly, "the parasite of world democracy"?!?!?! I may be wrong, but I do not think that parasite is the correct metaphor in this case. The world's democracies are most often the world's production engines, propping up more tribal and/or socialist countries with loans and humanitarian aid. Parasitic organisms, on the other hand, typically do not produce anything, but most often are recipients of the work and its byproducts done by others. Global Market certainly is not a parasitic country - it is a completely self-contained economic powerhouse seeking only to make the world a better place through democratic means and active participation in world events.

Though Idumea is not supportive of this resolution, it certainly is supportive of Global Market and many of the ideals that this great nation represents. I take you to task, Labrador, and you too, Aviea, for your overheated rhetoric, and respectfully move that apologies are tendered immediately in order to maintain the decorum and civility of the United Nations forum.

Respectfully,

Holly Chaplin, Delegate
The Free Land of Idumea

Wel, you can request an apology...you might even be able to make me SAY it...but you can't make me MEAN it.

Alas, the conservo-creeps will not leave us alone to enjoy the commune we created.

Ah, but that's the risk inherent in UN membership, isn't it?

No, you're misinterpreting what I said.

What I mean is...when we first formed our Region...we were a bunch of pissed-off liberals who were mistreated in the original Pacific Region, and we voted with our feet...and left Pacific to found our own Region.

And conservo-creep nations kept trying to invade our Region and give us grief! They kept moving to our Region, knowing full well they weren't wanted...and griefed us and our Boards!

One of the very reasons we have a kick function and Regional Founders is because I begged and pleaded for them so that we would not have to put up with the conservo-creeps invading and griefing us.

Alas, I didn't count on the conservo-creeps figuring out a way to get around some of that and engage in region-crashing...

We just want to be left alone in our Region. LIBERAL nations welcome to join us. Conservo-creep nations...stay away - WE DON'T WANT YOU!!!!
WE HATE YOU!!!
Is that clear enough??

We finally had to go to the somewhat repressive governmental apparatus we now have in order to protect our haven from being region-crashed, invaded, and taken over against our will.

Blame the griefers and posterior pains for the way we now have to govern our Region.

I created it as a liberal haven...and so long as I am in this game, Area 51 shall remain a liberal haven...over my dead body will it change!!

At least say in the title that it's a voet against national sovereignity... this is a vote for individual sovereignity since it increases the power of the invidiaul..

We never CLAIMED to be a democracy!
We are a LIBERAL DEMOCRACY. It is a different form of gvernment than the democracy you are familiar with.
We have our debates/disagreements, and we vote...but we do NOT allow conservatives to enter the debate...we don't want to hear from them!
Labrador, I hate conservatives just as much as much as the next person, but it sounds a lot like you're just curtailing their rights. Whats the difference between that and a dictatorship that curtails the rights of blacks, or gays, or liberals?
Thats not a beneovelent dictatorship, thats just a dictatorship.

Firstly, I am doing it to protect my citizens, (most of whom are considered minorities in the rest of the world) from the oppression conservatism brings. That is why I say we are a benevolent dictatorship.
Secondly, yes...you are quite correct...I AM curtailiing the rights of conservatives! Damn right I am! Let THEM see for once what oppression feels like!!
DAMN Conservo-creeps!!
Shoe don't feel so good on the other foot, does it?

Oh I see. Its just about revenge. Like Moby Dick or something. An eye for an eye. Well whats the point of protecting one group of people, if you do it at the expense of another? Thats a facist mentality. How can you claim to be protecting minorities if you're creating repression?

Of course the shoe feels good when you're wearing it. But its a shoe made for the Right foot, and it fits badly when worn on the Left, and it looks ugly.

Anyway, good luck Ahab.

Partly, yes...it is revenge! Mostly, though...it is reactionary...the only means by which we can insure that our Region is safe from the Region-crashers, greifers, and posterior pains.

Oh...and I won't mean any apology given to Global. EVER. I do not apologize to people who never listen to the other side, and always have a smart-alec response to any good points his opposition brings up.

This thing between Global and me goes WAYYYY back...

Very few people in this game have managed to piss me off more than Global has. And that's the truth!

The only ones who have managed to piss me off more are the region-crashers, greifers, and posterior pains.

Global's ideology and method of argument is what pisses me off about him. He refuses to acknowledge a good point made by any opposition...he sidesteps and refuses to answer any good question put to him by opposition, choosing instead to ignore the question.

I'm not the only nation Global has pissed off with his style of argument and ideology, by the way.

This reprehensible piece of legislation is an irredeemably badly-focused attempt to impede upon the individual states of the United Nations and to force the world lock-step into one ideology, with which some strongly disagree. Democracy can only lead to one thing: Depravity. To allow all to have a voice is to throw the doors open to those who do not have the Good of the People in their own minds. It is a criminally negligent system of government and must be combated at ALL costs, or all governmental legislation that has been established by previous rulers will give way to anarchy and open the entire country up to outside invasion. The people do not have time to know ALL of the issues that democracy would force them to vote on. As such, they must place their trust in an able-bodied Council that has only their best interests in mind, such as the Guiding Council of the United Socialist States of Krankheit. To do anything different is madness.

Strength In Unity,
Senator Theodore Kaplan, Political Counsel, Guiding Council
The United Socialist States of Krankheit

I'm not the only nation Global has pissed off with his style of argument and ideology, by the way.

Labrador you're the only person on here who swears at me on a regular basis.

The ideals of Democracy are those of a free people. It is contrary to force Democracy upon anybody.

While the people of Apleisiastaclesia support Democracy, we do not support the unlawful interference in another country's government processes without consent.

Give Democracy to those that ask of it. Do not force it down the throats of those who do not.

There are two problems with this conclusion:

1. A people not living in a democracy cannot obtain it peaceably, because a non-democratic government by its nature does not wish to give power to the people.

2. As John Stuart Mill asserted in On Liberty, an individual (and this applies as well to the aggregate) does not have the right to surrender his liberty and sell himself into slavery. The reason? Same as in #1 above: such a decision renders it impossible for him to change his mind. Once done, the act is irreversible except by war.

I therefore assert conclusively that a people - whether at the individual or aggregate level - have no right not to be a democracy.

I'm not the only nation Global has pissed off with his style of argument and ideology, by the way.

Labrador you're the only person on here who swears at me on a regular basis.

I didn't swear at you. I swore at PNAC.
And you'll notice I took it down, too.

The ideals of Democracy are those of a free people. It is contrary to force Democracy upon anybody.

While the people of Apleisiastaclesia support Democracy, we do not support the unlawful interference in another country's government processes without consent.

Give Democracy to those that ask of it. Do not force it down the throats of those who do not.

There are two problems with this conclusion:

1. A people not living in a democracy cannot obtain it peaceably, because a non-democratic government by its nature does not wish to give power to the people.

2. As John Stuart Mill asserted in On Liberty, an individual (and this applies as well to the aggregate) does not have the right to surrender his liberty and sell himself into slavery. The reason? Same as in #1 above: such a decision renders it impossible for him to change his mind. Once done, the act is irreversible except by war.

I therefore assert conclusively that a people - whether at the individual or aggregate level - have no right not to be a democracy.

What a bass-ackward way of approaching it, and such a stupid, specious argument!
Governmental power is ALWAYS obtained and maintained by the power of the legal gun. ALWAYS. You think the United States gained it's "democracy" peacefully?
And I put deomcrarcy in quotes because the U.S, is not really a democracy, nor was it ever intended to be one. But too many people think it IS one.

That being said, NO ONE...EVER...gains democracy peacefully. No government gains it's power peacefully. At some point, governmental authority is always attained/maintained by the power of the legal gun...or the threat of it.

My people in Labrador have many civil rights and political freedoms. And any citizen who does not like the way we govern in Labrador...or Area 51...is free to leave. They are not free to change our government in a manner which we, the power hlders, find disagreeable.

So, if they don't like it, they can leave. I have over 1.5 billion citizens...so plenty must like it in Labrador. There's their democracy. They can vote with their feet.

Just the way Area 51 (my region) was formed. We voted with our feet. We started as a group of pissed-off liberal nations who defected the original Pacific Region, because we felt we were not being represented within the U.N.

Pure democracy is nothing short of mob rule, and will lead to strife. It will lead to tyranny of the majority over the minority, and eventually, to anarchy and civil war and civil strife.

Democracy is a stupid idea. Besides, as another colleague pointed out, democracy is stupid because most people are either too stupid or too lazy to know what is best for them, and to vote intelligently.

Couple that with biases news sources spoon-feeding the populace a biased spin, and not the real news, and you end up with real trouble. Like we have currently in the United States.

Thanks to FAUX News, and their failure to report accurately, we have a group of very dangerous men running our country into the ground. Their lies have thus far unneccessarily killed 300 of our soldiers...countless Iraqis...has put more than 10 million people out of work...and all of us at ever-increasing risk of being a victim of a terrorist attack! Meanwhile, the cowards who have perpetrated all this will hide in underground bunkers when the next attack happens...leaving the populace they swore to defend...to breathe the sarin gas, the VX gas...the anthrax spore...they will leave US to be in the next skyscraper hit by an airplane, while they run off and hide, and then put on a sham performance as a hero, like Bush's shameful pre-election photo op in his flight suit on the USS Lincoln.

This, from a guy who refused to serve in Vietnam, and in fact went AWOL for a year from the Texas Air Guard, for reasons never made clear...though it is widely suspected he got convicted of drug charges.

Why else would he have been serving community service in the poor neighborhoods of Houston? Bush didn't do it out of the goodness of his heart...the man has no heart! :evil:

A vote for Cato is a vote against the Soverignty of Nations, this is the new world order vote no on Cato. :!:

What a bass-ackward way of approaching it, and such a stupid, specious argument!

Labrador, I find your attitude to be insulting, condescending and juvenile. You are entitled to your opinions, and I have no problem with you disagreeing with me or anyone else. But please grow up & be mature about it.

Governmental power is ALWAYS obtained and maintained by the power of the legal gun. ALWAYS. You think the United States gained it's "democracy" peacefully?

The original claim, to which I was responding, was that the people could get their democracy when they asked for it. My response was merely that even when they ask for it, they would not get it; and thus that claim was itself not only specious, but logically contradictory on its face.

And I put deomcrarcy in quotes because the U.S, is not really a democracy, nor was it ever intended to be one. But too many people think it IS one.

I've spent years in this argument. The U.S. is not a pure, or direct, democracy, though some States practice it through multitudes of ballot initiatives both as to laws and their respective constitutions. (And not just liberal ones; Arizona is rather conservative, and we're overloaded with them, too.) However, the U.S. is a representative democracy - that is, the officials are democratically elected. Thus it is not inappropriate to refer to the U.S. as a democracy, though neither pure nor direct.

Pure democracy is nothing short of mob rule, and will lead to strife. It will lead to tyranny of the majority over the minority, and eventually, to anarchy and civil war and civil strife.

Agreed. This is why constitutional representative democracy has replaced direct democracy. It works quite well, for the most part. (Nothing is perfect.)

Democracy is a stupid idea. Besides, as another colleague pointed out, democracy is stupid because most people are either too stupid or too lazy to know what is best for them, and to vote intelligently.

More insults. And unimaginative ones, too. Can't you do better than that? At least curse in a different language, for a change, instead of endlessly calling everything "stupid."

Besides, the people have the right to vote themselves stupid; they'll get what they deserve. Historically speaking, benevolent despots have two incontrovertible drawbacks: someone finds them less than benevolent; and they die, often leaving power to a malevolent despot. There is no way to guarantee benevolence in a despotism of any kind.

{Rant against Bush snipped for economy of space.}

I must disagree about G.W. Bush. I think you've made him out to be a far nicer guy than he actually is. (No, that wasn't sarcastic.)

Vote, not NO, but H... NO. Who does the sniveling little twit that proposed this resolution think he/she is? While I am a very peacful leader of my great nation, I would like to "hang ten" on his/her chin for even thinking about this resolution.

A vote for the Cato Acts is a vote for world democracy. DO NOT VOTE FOR THE CATO ACTS.

I've spent years in this argument. The U.S. is not a pure, or direct, democracy, though some States practice it through multitudes of ballot initiatives both as to laws and their respective constitutions. (And not just liberal ones; Arizona is rather conservative, and we're overloaded with them, too.) However, the U.S. is a representative democracy - that is, the officials are democratically elected. Thus it is not inappropriate to refer to the U.S. as a democracy, though neither pure nor direct.
{Rant against Bush snipped for economy of space.}

I must disagree about G.W. Bush. I think you've made him out to be a far nicer guy than he actually is. (No, that wasn't sarcastic.)

Bzzzt. Actually, the U.S. is a Representative REPUBLIC....not a democracy. Find the word Democracy even ONCE in the Constitution...you won't!
We are governed here by the rule of law. The Constitution is in place as a check and balance against the tyranny of the majority over the minority.

Democracy is like asking a group of 51 wolves and 49 sheep what's for dinner!

As to the rest...yeah, I went light on Bush. The man is truly evil.

Vote, not NO, but H... NO. Who does the sniveling littlet twit that proposed this resolution think he/she is? While I am a very peacful leader of my great nation, I would like to "hang ten" on his/her chin for even thinking about this resolution.

LOL!!! Got a tandem board? I'll join ya!!

The Holy Empire of Theistic Bliss has voted against the Cato Acts. Being a government that wishes nothing to do with this silliness contained in the weak ideology of democracy we have no need for implementation of such standards in our soveriegn rule.

Furthermore, The Holy Empire of Theistic Bliss shall begin lobbying the various members of our region (TheOozian) to vote against this resolution.

Thank you for your time,
Soverieng, Lord Emporer PJ

A vote for this piece of garbage goes against everything this game is designed to do. DUH... Let nation states run their own country! That is the fun of the game.

TGM, your resolution infringes on Nation's rights - as you will have seen, most people are thoroughly against Article VII in particular. If you were to amend the resolution, allowing governments to actually control their own countries, then I am sure your proposition would garner more votes.

The subject line here pretty much says it all, however, I urge voting against this Resolution, as it infringes on individuak nations' soverignty...as well as any Regions (such as ours) that have worked hard to pass our own Regional Constitutions!

Not that I oppose the ideas contained within CATO...but I do oppose the infringement upon, specifically, my Region's Regional Constitution.

Incidentally, CATO isn't enforceable, anyway, just like any other UN Resolution, and, if it passes, we shall, of course, immediately pass laws that out us back where we were before this buttinsky piece of crap was proposed.

Labrador I've never heard you support national soverengity before.
Do you just oppose everything I propose?

No. I oppose this because it wold seem to override our Regional Constitution!
Our Region was created by, for and AS a haven for liberal nations...we do not want conservo-creeps! And conservo-creeps, per our Constitution...have no voting rights.
Were it actually enforceable (and it isn't) your proposal would give voting rights to those we wish to deny those rights to.

We did NOT work hard to create a Region that is a haven for us, to have it taken over and subverted by conservo-creeps! We want to be left alone in our haven!

You said that this document was written by "conservo-creeps." We find that this assossiation is incorrect. This document is neither conservative nor liberal, Labrador. In fact, it's probably closer to being liberal, as on the "Facism-Communism" spectrum it's definitely closer to the communist, individualist side. It is, however, an infringement on the rights of local popular organizations, and therefore local populations, to govern themselves.

the Great Dausmaniac :mrgreen:
via Chancellor Wilhelm Jackson
with the Support and Approval of the Imperial Congress

As a conservative, even ultra-conservative nation, I believe that by giving my opinion I can help to bring this debate into focus. I merely ask that I not be attacked for my political views, as indeed I have no intention of attacking anyone. Alquador is an isolationist, not expansionist, nation.

First of all, I believe that there are extremes of political views beyond the scope of conservatism and liberalism; these are realism and idealism. Labrador's repression of conservatives is not anti-liberal but realistic, for the government of that country knows that if conservatives become too strong they will indeed take over. This says nothing about conservatives being evil or liberals being good, it is the mere truth: I keep the few liberals of my country in line as well, because I know that they pose a threat to me. I am, and perhaps Labrador is as well, concerned first and foremost with internal affairs, which is the way things should be. To use the cliche, Mind your own beeswax. You may ask why a nation such as mine is a member of the U.N., which is indeed a very good question, the answer being that we are not only isolationist but mildly paranoid. Which is a good lead-in to the next question:

Why does The Global Market care what happens to other countries?

The governmental systems of other countries should be of no concern to The Global Market. It does not affect your domestic or even, necessarily, regional politics. There are only two possible motives that I can think of for proposing this Act: either The Global Market is concerned about the civil and political freedoms of all people in the entire world, which, because it is so idealistic, is highly unlikely from an experienced political body; or, as I believe, this is an attempt at economic and cultural imperialisation, destined, if it is passed, to subjugate the entire globe to the rule of democracies worldwide and, specifically, to The Global Market itself.

Think about it. The representative from The Global Market has even declared that, once the people of other countries have gotten a taste of "Nike and MTV," e.g. its commercial products, they will be doing everything they can to move to the aforesaid nation. This blatently states that The Global Market believes that it will gain significantly, at other nations' loss, from these Acts if they are passed.

To recap: The Cato Acts are an attempt of The Global Market to bring the world under its economic and political influence. If you vote 'yes' to these acts, you are not only putting yourself but all of the United Nations under the control of supposedly 'idealistic' democracies.

PS Please think about the substance of what I just said, not just about my political standpoint.

Yes this is all a huge conspiracy of mine to take over the world. Especially Article VII. While you aren't allowed to draft any of your citizens I'll mobilize my entire 1-billion-man population and invade you. :roll:

As for realism and idealism, I'd rather have an idealistic democracy than a realistic dictatorship. "Realpolitik" governments have little concern about their citizens and are only bent on maintaining their own power no matter the cost. It no longer sees its citizens as people who have just as much of a right to exist as the state, but as things to be controlled.

The Government of Ursoria doesn't oppose most of the ideas contained in the CATO Resolution. However, we are opposed to the Resolution because it attempts to micro-manage the internal affairs of U.N. members--a trend already too far advanced.

As a rule, U.N. resolutions should deal with matters of transnational concern, while leaving the internal policies of member nations up to their respective governments. Of course, this principle is not absolute. The U.N. can and should intervene to prevent the most eggregious abuses of human dignity. But it should not routinely act as a kind of "Super-Pariliament" to supersede national sovereignty.

Ursoria urges other U.N. members to vote "no" on the CATO resolution.

I don't see why any country who's leaders are in their right mind would vote for this proposal. If they read item number seven they will see that to vote this in would make it impossible for a country who needs it to enact a system of draft to man their armies. This would leave small countries totally at the mercy of larger ones who can freasibly man a volunteer force.

I don't see why any country who's leaders are in their right mind would vote for this proposal. If they read item number seven they will see that to vote this in would make it impossible for a country who needs it to enact a system of draft to man their armies. This would leave small countries totally at the mercy of larger ones who can freasibly man a volunteer force.

The Vatican City doesn't have an army but Italy isn't gonna invade any time soon. We're more civil than "let's all attack small countries"... except the US... but that's another story altogether.

I don't see why any country who's leaders are in their right mind would vote for this proposal. If they read item number seven they will see that to vote this in would make it impossible for a country who needs it to enact a system of draft to man their armies. This would leave small countries totally at the mercy of larger ones who can freasibly man a volunteer force.

The Vatican City doesn't have an army but Italy isn't gonna invade any time soon. We're more civil than "let's all attack small countries"... except the US... but that's another story altogether.Italy attack? What are they going to do smother them in tomato sause and garlic?

I don't see why any country who's leaders are in their right mind would vote for this proposal. If they read item number seven they will see that to vote this in would make it impossible for a country who needs it to enact a system of draft to man their armies. This would leave small countries totally at the mercy of larger ones who can freasibly man a volunteer force.

The Vatican City doesn't have an army but Italy isn't gonna invade any time soon. We're more civil than "let's all attack small countries"... except the US... but that's another story altogether.Italy attack? What are they going to do smother them in tomato sause and garlic?

There are other types of imperialism besides invade-a-nation imperialism. Specifically the ones I mentioned, economic and cultural imperialism. These are used to turn the favor of the people towards the imperialist country, until after a few generations said people, if their government does not hold them in check, are so brainwashed that they wish to join the imperialist power. Think of propaganda, only it affects peoples' day-to-day lives.

Oh, and regarding realpolitik, why do you think it's so prominent in Alquador? :lol: :twisted:

(Repeat after me: not evil, just cynical, not evil, just cynical...)

There are other types of imperialism besides invade-a-nation imperialism. Specifically the ones I mentioned, economic and cultural imperialism. These are used to turn the favor of the people towards the imperialist country, until after a few generations said people, if their government does not hold them in check, are so brainwashed that they wish to join the imperialist power. Think of propaganda, only it affects peoples' day-to-day lives.

So the government needs to "hold people in check." It's that kind of thinking that's claimed the lives of 200 million in the 20th century alone.

There are other types of imperialism besides invade-a-nation imperialism. Specifically the ones I mentioned, economic and cultural imperialism. These are used to turn the favor of the people towards the imperialist country, until after a few generations said people, if their government does not hold them in check, are so brainwashed that they wish to join the imperialist power. Think of propaganda, only it affects peoples' day-to-day lives.

So the government needs to "hold people in check." It's that kind of thinking that's claimed the lives of 200 million in the 20th century alone.

It's the opposite kind of thinking that led to Philip's conquest of Athens.

I can't think of any way to counter your argument without turning this into an argument of liberal vs conservative; our ideologies are different enough that anything I would honestly say would be taken as an attack upon liberalism. Perhaps someone with a closer view to The Global Market's would care to take a stab at it?

Ooh, nevermind, although if you have a good argument I'd appreciate it...

The Nazis would never have come to power if the Allies hadn't forced a bunch of terms and conditions on Germany, in an attempt to make it a democracy, or at least safer.

It's a vote for liberties and freedoms that I happen to like.

----------------
-President Z.D. Meier
Alliance of Democracy
U.N. Delegate

http://images.art.com/images/PRODUCTS/small/10045000/10045608.jpg

Please excuse the third reply in a row; I'm on a roll, probably because I'm supposed to be writing a paper :wink:

I don't believe that resisting foreign influence should be a crime, and undoubtedly you would agree; but the Cato Acts make it so. Democracy is not an absolute but a cultural value, and by forcing any society into it you violate the rights of that society.

We are a monarchy, this voliates our nationial soverenity and tries to tell us how to run our goverement.

I'm voting against this resolution simply because it reduces national sovereignty. It seems people are actually getting a clue, this is the first "Bill of Rights" type resolution that I've seen in the losing streak.

Labrador's reason is silly. The real reason that we should vote against this is because it simply infringes upon our national sovereignty.

I vote NO, not because I disagree, but because I disapprove of making the UN a place of strict enforcement. :roll:

this is an act to try and make us all Democratic, VOTE AGAINST THIS!

I'm voting against this resolution simply because it reduces national sovereignty. It seems people are actually getting a clue, this is the first "Bill of Rights" type resolution that I've seen in the losing streak.

Labrador's reason is silly. The real reason that we should vote against this is because it simply infringes upon our national sovereignty.

I vote NO, not because I disagree, but because I disapprove of making the UN a place of strict enforcement. :roll:

Ariddia's thoughts exactly. While we are a democracy and allow a wide variety of civil and political rights, this proposal is a crude attempt to make every nation follow a strict set of rules and deprive them of their sovereignty.

I don't really understand this whole big deal being made about the sovereignty of a nation. Isn't it more important for the citizens of a nation to have freedoms than for its government to have more power over the people? I thought a goverment was there to serve the people, not the other way around.

I don't really understand this whole big deal being made about the sovereignty of a nation. Isn't it more important for the citizens of a nation to have freedoms than for its government to have more power over the people? I thought a goverment was there to serve the people, not the other way around.

It is. Only rights are inalienabel.

It's a matter of opinion, there is no right answer. Otherwise either Global or I would be kissing the other's boots, begging for forgiveness. :)

As for myself, I tend to put the good of the whole above the good of the individual. Western societies tend to be individualist, so it's not surprising that you feel that individual rights are more important. However, most religions stress not the good of the individual but the community. All of Western history can be seen as a struggle between the individualist and the socialist schools of thought, starting as far back as the Roman Empire.

Oh, I consider the community very important, I'm a democratic socialist myself. I think that people should be given a choice, since mandantory contribution to society sounds more like Communism than Socialism. I've always been of the opinion that socialism is one of most beneficial systems for the individual, and that capitalism is actually closer to being a repressive system.

While others would say the same thing about Socialism.

OOC: Wow, a resolution that WON'T pass? Finally, a sign that people here CAN think.
IC: The TYB government votes against this proposal because it is an attempt to force a certain kind of government on the world. It extends way beyond national sovereignity; it is an attempt to fundamentally alter the governance of nations by making all the nations of the world to be democracies in some form or another. That is absolutely unacceptable.

- TYB/UN Ambassador Patrick Ewing

- TYB/UN Ambassador Patrick Ewing

OOC: Are you any relation of Tom Ewing? I do rather love Freaky Trigger, and I'm guessing that's not too common a name?

Actually, my problems with CATO are articles 1 and 4. I do not want to give any conservatives in my nation any voice or representation. Someone, quite accurately stated...I personally view them as a threat to me.
And since we have criminalised conservative thought in our nation, we vehemently disagree with Article 4...we wish to be allowed to continue to persecute and sue...people who engage in conservative thought/action.

Those who are conservatives are free to leave. That is the only freedom they are accorded in Labrador.
We quite frankly wish they would leave. We don't want them in Labrador.

I think we should vote on each article seperately. Some I want, others, I don't. Like labrador, I hate conservatives, and don't want to give the power.

I have an idea:

How about, those you like, you implement in your nation and don't try to force them on others. And those you don't, you don't implement them, and don't have them forced upon you. Problem solved. Whee!

Labrador, you have a very sick mind. You label everyone by political opinion and we shouldn't vote down this resolution just to insure that the insanity in your insignificant region may continue. This is for the greater good of all humanity and we must not allow sadistic freaks like yourself to undermine the basic principles of human dignity. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of you. If you can't take the heat of the UN, get out of the kitchen. I must ask that you remove yourself from the UN if you cannot live with something that destroys your ideals to have undermined the basic rights of your political counterparts. May it be said here and now that you shouldn't have a say in this matter. As I have said before, if you don't like the UN, get your slimy undeserving ass out.
-Official Spyw Statement-

I would strongly caution the nation of Spyw to never again use such harmful ad hominem attacks towards another United Nations member, especially one of Labrador's experience.

As for the issue at hand, a nation could implement the Cato Acts on its own home soil even if the resolution at hand is voted down. If they are not accepted by the United Nations, that makes them optional; if they are accepted, however, that makes them required. I only wish that more people would remember that...

One good rule for voting on U.N. proposals: Only vote 'yes' if you believe that EVERY nation should be forced to implement the resolution. If there is any circumstance under which you believe someone should not be required to implement it, vote 'no' or abstain.

I don't believe that it should be voted down for the good of the few countries that oppress political parties or their entire population in general.

I will not cower in fear of a larger nation. I will stand up and voice my conservative views because he cannot do one damn thing about it.

Still, that doesn't give you the right to bad-mouth another nation's opinion in the way you did. You could at least attempt to be polite about sharing your views.

You think your views are conservative? Labrador and I are at the opposite ends of the spectrum. If any one of his governmental types was a citizen of Alquador, he'd be in prison or deported right now. Same if I was in his nation. I'm conservative to the point of dictatorship. So don't flaunt your conservatism, which is actually moderatism, in such a way that you get into arguments.

In the future, when expressing an opinion, please do so politely. Swearing is generally not acceptable.

If it's voted down you can still do it. Why is this not getting through to you? Just, don't force me into something which contradicts my beliefs. Especially, something which is merely an imperialist tool of a moderate-left conspiracy (only half j/k). But obviously Spyw is part of that too, isn't it? Well, I only have one thing to say to that: At least The Global Market is civil.

I voted against because of article VII

I know it tries to protect people from slavery, but it's not very well described. In my Grand Duchy we have a lot of vacant jobs, but some people are just too lazy and sit in a couch watching tv all day. This is a wrong situation, people without work and vacant jobs that don't get filled. We propose all our non-working people who can work to take up one of these jobs. If they don't accept a job from this large list within 5 months, the monthly money they get from our social system is halved. Remember this is only for healthy people who are able to work, we don't force this upon people who are mentally ill or fysicly disabled.

We feel Article VII of the Cato resolution could put an end to this system. Our economy would seriously suffer because of the lack of workers, our government's expenses would increase too much and our people would become lazy and fat.

I think we should vote on each article seperately. Some I want, others, I don't. Like labrador, I hate conservatives, and don't want to give the power.
I despise Conservative thought just as much as you, or at least a great deal anyways, but I nonetheless have respect for the intelligent ones (that know what they're saying) and think they still have a right to voice their opinions. I thought freedom of speech was important to the left.

Somehow, I have yet to see that basics of civil and human rights as contained within CATO to be offensive or detrimental to anyone or anything. In fact, the whole thing seems like COMMON SENSE to me, and a vote towards eqality if it's voted for.
Regardless of whether it passes or not, Toronea has given its vote in favor of CATO, and will continue to uphold those rights and ideals as much as possible in her own lands anyway.

Agreed Tononea.
I've noticed that many other socialist nations are against this bill- they think it's capitalistic. I'm not sure how they percieve this, I'd like some input.
Edit: Oh, yay, I just became delegate in my region. Thats a few extra YES votes on Cato. :)

you know its kinda like its telling ME what rights i have to have for my people. you cant tell me what i can and cant do.

Are human beings different in their humanity from country to country? Are citizens in one nation less human than those in another? I doubt a person should gain or lose a right such as free speech by walking across a border. I doubt they change in human spirit just because they walked across a fictitious line that is only relevant in the minds of beaurocrats. I will not tell other countries how to run themselves. I will tell their people what rights they have because they are people, not because they are citizens of a certain country.

The proposed Cato resolution is a wonderful document, and promises to do much to change our world for the better. Democracy, freedom, basic equality -- it promises us all of these things, and asks for little in return. We most certainly support this resolution, and strongly urge all other nations to do the same.

Some have voiced concerns regarding national sovereignty; we would like to suggest that such concerns may be unfounded. Whatever else happens, your nation allways has the freedom to leave the UN, and thus no longer be bound by its laws. Membership is voluntary; if the United Nations is too democratic to suit your policies, your nation can cancel its membership, and the UN will infringe on its sovereignty no more.

But we feel that most nations within the UN do believe in the values of democracy, the values of freedom. Vote for this resolution. A vote for Cato is a vote for your people, and for the people of the United Nations everywhere.

The CATO acts are an injustice to all nations, a deliberate and blatent attempt by a few democracies to force their naive ideals and style of government down the throat of other nations. Every government has the inaliable right to govern their country as they see fit, and the nations that endorse this resolution seek to take that right away. I've voted against the CATO acts, and I advise all other nations to do the same.

Labrador, you have a very sick mind. You label everyone by political opinion and we shouldn't vote down this resolution just to insure that the insanity in your insignificant region may continue. This is for the greater good of all humanity and we must not allow sadistic freaks like yourself to undermine the basic principles of human dignity. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of you. If you can't take the heat of the UN, get out of the kitchen. I must ask that you remove yourself from the UN if you cannot live with something that destroys your ideals to have undermined the basic rights of your political counterparts. May it be said here and now that you shouldn't have a say in this matter. As I have said before, if you don't like the UN, get your slimy undeserving ass out.
-Official Spyw Statement-

The UN is NOT the place to try to force governments to change their INTERNAL political policies...or to force a particular governmental system, acceptable to someone else...onto nation over which they have no control.

The CATO acts are an injustice to all nations, a deliberate and blatent attempt by a few democracies to force their naive ideals and style of government down the throat of other nations. Every government has the inaliable right to govern their country as they see fit, and the nations that endorse this resolution seek to take that right away. I've voted against the CATO acts, and I advise all other nations to do the same.

It is true that the CATO acts are a blatant attempt to force democratic ways onto everyone in the UN. But if you feel these rules to be unfair, and they do pass...than you have no obligation to stay in the UN ...however, I do not think it will pass, and I myself am voting against them. It is not that I am un-demoratic, merely that I do not want some already enforced laws of my nation, to be overthrown because of some UN law. This is a blatant offense to my right to run my country however I feel best.

I would strongly caution the nation of Spyw to never again use such harmful ad hominem attacks towards another United Nations member, especially one of Labrador's experience.

As for the issue at hand, a nation could implement the Cato Acts on its own home soil even if the resolution at hand is voted down. If they are not accepted by the United Nations, that makes them optional; if they are accepted, however, that makes them required. I only wish that more people would remember that...

One good rule for voting on U.N. proposals: Only vote 'yes' if you believe that EVERY nation should be forced to implement the resolution. If there is any circumstance under which you believe someone should not be required to implement it, vote 'no' or abstain.

Very good, Alquador! If you, and other nations believe so firmly in this piece of garbage, then implement it on your own, ON YOUR OWN SOIL!! Do not force it on me. This is a form of government totally unacceptable to me. The whole point of this game is to allow the user to govern their own country. I'll not have mine governed by someone else...or in a manner acceptable to someone else, thank you very much.

I don't believe that it should be voted down for the good of the few countries that oppress political parties or their entire population in general.

I will not cower in fear of a larger nation. I will stand up and voice my conservative views because he cannot do one damn thing about it.

First of all, it is SHE...look at my name...The QUEENDOM of Labrador. We are a monarchy. We do allow for representation of the people thru a House of Commons, much as the British.

Second, I don't intend to do anything abut you, Spyw, as long as you keep your conservo-creep filth OFF MY SHORES!!
Do what you want in your own country...don't force me to do anything I don't want to do in mine. If we disagree politically, then I respect your right to be wrong, and never 'tween shall we meet.

I think we should vote on each article seperately. Some I want, others, I don't. Like labrador, I hate conservatives, and don't want to give the power.
I despise Conservative thought just as much as you, or at least a great deal anyways, but I nonetheless have respect for the intelligent ones (that know what they're saying) and think they still have a right to voice their opinions. I thought freedom of speech was important to the left.

Not when their speech is full of nothing but lies that get 300 soldiers and countless innocent civilians killed for no damn good reason...and not when their economic policies cut 10 million jobs and send a robust economy right down the porcelain log flume...all to the benefit of their cronies! :evil: :evil:

Not when their foreign policy makes of every citizen a soldier...whether or not they volunteered to be a soldier! As it stands now, I am, in RL, a soldier now...not because I wanted to be one...but just because I'm an American. When...not f but when...the next terrorist attack happens here...I am the one who will breathe the sarin, the VX, the anthrax spores...all while the yellowbelly coward who created the vehement anger against the United States runs with his little cronies to a nice, safe underground bunker, like the coward he is!! He even went AWOL from his cushy assignment to Camp Mabry of the Texas Air Guard during Vietnam!! And then puts on a sham pre-election photo-op in a flight suit aboard the USS Lincoln!

No free speech for liars and criminals and coke-head leaders, thank you!

Are human beings different in their humanity from country to country? Are citizens in one nation less human than those in another? I doubt a person should gain or lose a right such as free speech by walking across a border. I doubt they change in human spirit just because they walked across a fictitious line that is only relevant in the minds of beaurocrats. I will not tell other countries how to run themselves. I will tell their people what rights they have because they are people, not because they are citizens of a certain country.

Like hell you won't tell other countries how to run themselves!! By voting YES on this piece of trash that is precisely what you are doing. don't go blowing hot and cold out of different sides of your mouth and not expect to get called out for it...not as long as I'm patrolling these boards!

The one thing you can say for me...as whacked out as you may think I am...at least I'm consistent!

The CATO acts are an injustice to all nations, a deliberate and blatent attempt by a few democracies to force their naive ideals and style of government down the throat of other nations. Every government has the inaliable right to govern their country as they see fit, and the nations that endorse this resolution seek to take that right away. I've voted against the CATO acts, and I advise all other nations to do the same.

It is true that the CATO acts are a blatant attempt to force democratic ways onto everyone in the UN. But if you feel these rules to be unfair, and they do pass...than you have no obligation to stay in the UN ...however, I do not think it will pass, and I myself am voting against them. It is not that I am un-demoratic, merely that I do not want some already enforced laws of my nation, to be overthrown because of some UN law. This is a blatant offense to my right to run my country however I feel best.

EXACTLY WHAT I AND OTHERS WHO AGREE WITH MY POSITION ARE SAYING!!
My personal objections are articles 1 and 4, because they override laws which exist in my nation, and in my Region...and which we like, and wish to continue to enforce. They are necessary to maintain the purpose for which our Region was founded...a haven for liberal nations who hate conservo-creeps.

Fort Maine clearly cannot support this legislation as it is written. While admirable, it is an assault on our soverignty, which is something we worked hard to presreve.

If this act passes Fort Maine will be forced to withdraw from the United Nations.

If this act passes Fort Maine will be forced to withdraw from the United Nations.

Y'all ever get the feelin' that this is the whole point of a lotta these here proposals?

There'd be a small group o' uppity egg-headed rich boys want to try and drive the rest of us outta their sand box by passin' stuff we won't go fer.

I say we keep shootin' down all these "special interest" proposals and keep the U.N. what it were intended fer... which is keepin everyone from goin' at each others throats.

-Prez Billy Bob Hicklee

Once your citizens start getting more Nikes and more MTV fewer and fewer will believe in your dictatorial "liberal" ideologies. A smaller and smaller minority will be in power and eventually they will collapse on top of themselves and democracy will be restored.

"Where was I? I forgot
The point that I was making
I said if I was smart that I would
Save up for a piece of string
And a rock to wind the string around

Everybody wants a rock
To wind a piece of string around
Everybody wants a rock
To wind a piece of string around

Throw the crib door wide
Let the people crawl inside
Someone in this town
Is trying to burn the playhouse down
They want to stop the ones who want
A rock to wind a string around
But everybody wants a rock
To wind a piece of string around

[Repeat]

If I were a carpenter I’d
Hammer on my piglet, I’d
Collect the seven dollars and I’d
Buy a big prosthetic forehead
And wear it on my real head

Everybody wants prosthetic
Foreheads on their real heads
Everybody wants prosthetic
Foreheads on their real heads

Throw the crib door wide
Let the people crawl inside
Someone in this town
Is trying to burn the playhouse down
They want to stop the ones who want
Prosthetic foreheads on their heads
But everybody wants prosthetic
Foreheads on their real heads

Throw the crib door wide
Let the people crawl inside
Someone in this town
Is trying to burn the foreheads down
They want to stop the ones who want
A rock to wind a string around
But everybody wants a rock
To wind a piece of string around"

Y'all ever get the feelin' that this is the whole point of a lotta these here proposals?

T-Prez Billy Bob Hicklee

Has there been any thought on another world body? A competitor to the UN that is basically the same thing except with different resolutions? That way if you don't want to deal with wacky UN resolutions you can go over to the other body (League of Nations? Assembly of States? The Other United Nations?)

One Hand O'Brian
Chief Tiger Handler
Berhampore Potent Potentate

I think we should vote on each article seperately. Some I want, others, I don't. Like labrador, I hate conservatives, and don't want to give the power.
I despise Conservative thought just as much as you, or at least a great deal anyways, but I nonetheless have respect for the intelligent ones (that know what they're saying) and think they still have a right to voice their opinions. I thought freedom of speech was important to the left.

Not when their speech is full of nothing but lies that get 300 soldiers and countless innocent civilians killed for no damn good reason...and not when their economic policies cut 10 million jobs and send a robust economy right down the porcelain log flume...all to the benefit of their cronies! :evil: :evil:

Not when their foreign policy makes of every citizen a soldier...whether or not they volunteered to be a soldier! As it stands now, I am, in RL, a soldier now...not because I wanted to be one...but just because I'm an American. When...not f but when...the next terrorist attack happens here...I am the one who will breathe the sarin, the VX, the anthrax spores...all while the yellowbelly coward who created the vehement anger against the United States runs with his little cronies to a nice, safe underground bunker, like the coward he is!! He even went AWOL from his cushy assignment to Camp Mabry of the Texas Air Guard during Vietnam!! And then puts on a sham pre-election photo-op in a flight suit aboard the USS Lincoln!

No free speech for liars and criminals and coke-head leaders, thank you!

Okay, you thank me for making a good point, and then you group me as a conservative with the potheads in the Republican party. So much for consistency.

The political situation in this country is such that the Democratic Party is not liberal, and everyone recognizes that; what they don't recognize is, that the Republican Party isn't conservative, either. Absolute liberalism and conservatism are very different from what the politics of this country make them out to be. Liberals say, "Things could be better. Let's change almost everything and hope it comes out well." Conservatives say, "Things could be worse. Let's change very little, since we've obviously been doing something right." In my opinion, conservatism makes more sense, because it's a more controlled experiment, changing only one variable at a time; the results that we get can then be directly corrolated with the change in variable. It's more scientific.

Here's an analogy. Let's say you have a potted plant that will grow best in a certain level of light, but you don't know what that level is. You have a light in this room with one of those graduated switches, you know, where if you move it up real slowly the level of light will move up slowly too. A conservative picks a random value, then the next day adds just a couple more lumens and sees what happens, and on the third day adjusts accordingly. A liberal will pick a random value, and if it's not good enough for him or her, the next day he or she will switch it to another random value. Or at least, that's how I see it. Feel free to correct me, although preferably not in flame form.

Back to the point: Conservatives are no more Republican than Liberals or Libertarians are Democrat.

I think that Republicans are not so much conservatives as they are right-wing moderate imperialists. This would work in some worlds; it worked in the first half of the 1900s. The party just hasn't caught up with the 1960s yet. In today's world, one of the most abhorred things of all time is imperialism - remember, that's why I'm opposing these Acts, because I feel that they are imperialist.

Here's a handy little scale I just made up: Three dimensions of political thought, overly simplified. This is just a rough draft, I'm only proposing it now, so tell me what you think. Obviously I can't fit in all of the subtleties, as my space and font size are limited.

Grouping means nothing: each line stands alone. The numbers are there for your rating convenience.


liberal------------------moderate------------------conservative

isolationist-------------free trade------------------imperialist

idealist-------------------realist----------------------cynicist

1--------------2-------------3-------------4-------------5

Alright, enough with the political name calling. If we don't agree, what are these discusions going to do? These forums should be used to make political allies and make parties. Many parties (our 2 party system is getting us in trouble). Don't worry about the war, after all, there is no war in this world. And relax about the libs and cons (no pun intended... gulp) :oops: . Lets make some points, and leave it at that. I'm only worried that my manditory military service will be erased. I agree with a point made early on in the debate. Let's seperate the articles into seperate bills. That'll get us some where, and there will be less tension.

I think we should vote on each article seperately. Some I want, others, I don't. Like labrador, I hate conservatives, and don't want to give the power.
I despise Conservative thought just as much as you, or at least a great deal anyways, but I nonetheless have respect for the intelligent ones (that know what they're saying) and think they still have a right to voice their opinions. I thought freedom of speech was important to the left.

Not when their speech is full of nothing but lies that get 300 soldiers and countless innocent civilians killed for no damn good reason...and not when their economic policies cut 10 million jobs and send a robust economy right down the porcelain log flume...all to the benefit of their cronies! :evil: :evil:

Not when their foreign policy makes of every citizen a soldier...whether or not they volunteered to be a soldier! As it stands now, I am, in RL, a soldier now...not because I wanted to be one...but just because I'm an American. When...not f but when...the next terrorist attack happens here...I am the one who will breathe the sarin, the VX, the anthrax spores...all while the yellowbelly coward who created the vehement anger against the United States runs with his little cronies to a nice, safe underground bunker, like the coward he is!! He even went AWOL from his cushy assignment to Camp Mabry of the Texas Air Guard during Vietnam!! And then puts on a sham pre-election photo-op in a flight suit aboard the USS Lincoln!

No free speech for liars and criminals and coke-head leaders, thank you!

Okay, you thank me for making a good point, and then you group me as a conservative with the potheads in the Republican party. So much for consistency.

The political situation in this country is such that the Democratic Party is not liberal, and everyone recognizes that; what they don't recognize is, that the Republican Party isn't conservative, either. Absolute liberalism and conservatism are very different from what the politics of this country make them out to be. Liberals say, "Things could be better. Let's change almost everything and hope it comes out well." Conservatives say, "Things could be worse. Let's change very little, since we've obviously been doing something right." In my opinion, conservatism makes more sense, because it's a more controlled experiment, changing only one variable at a time; the results that we get can then be directly corrolated with the change in variable. It's more scientific.

Here's an analogy. Let's say you have a potted plant that will grow best in a certain level of light, but you don't know what that level is. You have a light in this room with one of those graduated switches, you know, where if you move it up real slowly the level of light will move up slowly too. A conservative picks a random value, then the next day adds just a couple more lumens and sees what happens, and on the third day adjusts accordingly. A liberal will pick a random value, and if it's not good enough for him or her, the next day he or she will switch it to another random value. Or at least, that's how I see it. Feel free to correct me, although preferably not in flame form.

Back to the point: Conservatives are no more Republican than Liberals or Libertarians are Democrat.

I think that Republicans are not so much conservatives as they are right-wing moderate imperialists. This would work in some worlds; it worked in the first half of the 1900s. The party just hasn't caught up with the 1960s yet. In today's world, one of the most abhorred things of all time is imperialism - remember, that's why I'm opposing these Acts, because I feel that they are imperialist.

Here's a handy little scale I just made up: Three dimensions of political thought, overly simplified. This is just a rough draft, I'm only proposing it now, so tell me what you think. Obviously I can't fit in all of the subtleties, as my space and font size are limited.

Grouping means nothing: each line stands alone. The numbers are there for your rating convenience.


liberal------------------moderate------------------conservative

isolationist-------------free trade------------------imperialist

idealist-------------------realist----------------------cynicist

1--------------2-------------3-------------4-------------5

I didn't group you anywhere...this response was to Etahma...not you. Etahma is the one I mean to categorize here...sorry if you misinterpreted my meaning...is there some way I might have been clearer on my meaning?

Alright, enough with the political name calling. If we don't agree, what are these discusions going to do? These forums should be used to make political allies and make parties. Many parties (our 2 party system is getting us in trouble). Don't worry about the war, after all, there is no war in this world. And relax about the libs and cons (no pun intended... gulp) :oops: . Lets make some points, and leave it at that. I'm only worried that my manditory military service will be erased. I agree with a point made early on in the debate. Let's seperate the articles into seperate bills. That'll get us some where, and there will be less tension.

As long as articles 1 and 4 fail, I have no problem with the others.

This is already much as my nation is governed. But I'll NOT be forced to give political voice and power to those who oppose me! We are a monarchy, and shall remian so. Suffrance is granted ONLY by supreme writ of the Throne.

Thos the Throne chooses not to acknowledge shall not be acknowledged, and that is our right as a soverign nation. We will not idly stand by while our soverignty is threatened and trod upon.

We of The Queendom Of Lolly Pop Land must vote no on this resolution. We believe in absolute freedom and democracy, which means that we do NOT have the right to tell another country how to do things. Furthermore, several Articles give us pause, such as:
Article II- This legislation is too vague, and could be misleading. If the defendant does not have the burden of proof in a trial, why give the defendant a defense at all? In order for equality between defense and prosecution, we must insist that the burden of proof lie with both parties.
Article IV- If applied to the mass media, this resolution could quickly lead to a cultural decline of massive proportions, to which we will not subject our children. Regulations pertaining to the proper time, places, and venues for self-expression are working quite well for us at this time, and we do not wish to change.
Article VIII- If bail is posted, and a criminal wishes to leave our country before the trial, this would allow the criminal to do so. We do not like this. Our free citizens may come and go as they please, but certain instances require a restriction on immigration/emigration.

Lastly, the line stating that all legislation in conflict with this resolution would be null and void is directly violating the so-called "democratic" flavor of this document. Our citizens voted our laws into effect in the first place. We fear that this resolution would cause a serious backlash among the Queendom.

Love and Lollies,

Nikki The Younger, Delegate of Lolly Pop Land

Etahma is the one I mean to categorize here...
Categorize? As what? I hope you don't think I'm conservative if that's what you mean.
This whole debait is rather confusing because Cato is getting support and opposition from seemingly all over the political spectrum. I still don't understand why fellow socialist nations oppose Cato. And at the same time I find myself arguing on the same side as a libertarian. Odd...
Like hell you won't tell other countries how to run themselves!! By voting YES on this piece of trash that is precisely what you are doing. don't go blowing hot and cold out of different sides of your mouth and not expect to get called out for it...
Wow, calm down. No need to get all upset, it makes debait rather pointless. I still haven't heard from you on whether or not you think a person can cross borders and change in their humanity. The acts proposed in Cato don't represent major blows to a nation's system- it only provides basic guidelines that all people deserve. Like a nation said before, things like freedom of speech shouldn't seem controversial, they're more like common sense. I'm not telling countries how to run themselves, I'm telling people what rights they deserve. I don't care what nation they're in, they should be no less human under one flag than another. Is it so much a threat to nations that they don't repress their people? If you're for repression and all that, I have no idea what you're doing in the UN.
...not as long as I'm patrolling these boards!
Patrolling? For who?

Article VIII- That all private individuals and businesses shall have the right to emigrate from any nation, though individual nations shall reserve the right to create their own policy on immigration and naturalization.

I guess that includes convicted felons, murderers, rapists, pedophiles, political discidents, Nuclear physicists, biological war scientists, Genetic fruitcakes, and idiots who call themselves liberal but hate the idea of allowing conservatives freedome of speach?

Article VIII- That all private individuals and businesses shall have the right to emigrate from any nation, though individual nations shall reserve the right to create their own policy on immigration and naturalization.

I guess that includes convicted felons, murderers, rapists, pedophiles, political discidents, Nuclear physicists, biological war scientists, Genetic fruitcakes, and idiots who call themselves liberal but hate the idea of allowing conservatives freedome of speach?

As for felons, murderers, etc. they are undesirable people. After their jail term there's no reason not to let them move.

As for political dissidents, what's wrong with dissenting?

As for nuclear physicists and war scientists if they aren't currently employed by the government they should be allowed to move. IF the government is their employer, they are PUBLIC individuals and thus this doesn't apply to them.

Article VIII- That all private individuals and businesses shall have the right to emigrate from any nation, though individual nations shall reserve the right to create their own policy on immigration and naturalization.

I guess that includes convicted felons, murderers, rapists, pedophiles, political discidents, Nuclear physicists, biological war scientists, Genetic fruitcakes, and idiots who call themselves liberal but hate the idea of allowing conservatives freedome of speach?

As for felons, murderers, etc. they are undesirable people. After their jail term there's no reason not to let them move.


Hate to say this, but your resolution doesn't specify anything about criminals serving jail sentences. You'd have to let them leave in the middle of their sentence under this resolution. Yet another reason to vote against.

Article VIII- That all private individuals and businesses shall have the right to emigrate from any nation, though individual nations shall reserve the right to create their own policy on immigration and naturalization.

I guess that includes convicted felons, murderers, rapists, pedophiles, political discidents, Nuclear physicists, biological war scientists, Genetic fruitcakes, and idiots who call themselves liberal but hate the idea of allowing conservatives freedome of speach?

As for felons, murderers, etc. they are undesirable people. After their jail term there's no reason not to let them move.


Hate to say this, but your resolution doesn't specify anything about criminals serving jail sentences. You'd have to let them leave in the middle of their sentence under this resolution. Yet another reason to vote against.

They aren't private citizens if they are being held by the government.

Article VIII- That all private individuals and businesses shall have the right to emigrate from any nation, though individual nations shall reserve the right to create their own policy on immigration and naturalization.

I guess that includes convicted felons, murderers, rapists, pedophiles, political discidents, Nuclear physicists, biological war scientists, Genetic fruitcakes, and idiots who call themselves liberal but hate the idea of allowing conservatives freedome of speach?

As for felons, murderers, etc. they are undesirable people. After their jail term there's no reason not to let them move.


Hate to say this, but your resolution doesn't specify anything about criminals serving jail sentences. You'd have to let them leave in the middle of their sentence under this resolution. Yet another reason to vote against.

They aren't private citizens if they are being held by the government.

Where do you derive your definition of private from? Is there some previous (NationStates) UN precident for this? Otherwise you're gonna need to define your term.

What about Kato the Kaylin?

I don't believe that it should be voted down for the good of the few countries that oppress political parties or their entire population in general.

I will not cower in fear of a larger nation. I will stand up and voice my conservative views because he cannot do one damn thing about it.

First of all, it is SHE...look at my name...The QUEENDOM of Labrador. We are a monarchy. We do allow for representation of the people thru a House of Commons, much as the British.

Second, I don't intend to do anything abut you, Spyw, as long as you keep your conservo-creep filth OFF MY SHORES!!
Do what you want in your own country...don't force me to do anything I don't want to do in mine. If we disagree politically, then I respect your right to be wrong, and never 'tween shall we meet.
I was waiting for you to call me a conservo-creep. Just a spur of the moment idea to flame liberals. The way I express my views here do not completly represent me. I'm just saying moderate things to make the CATO acts sound better. I'm actually quite conservative and have pushed it to the point of dictatorship.

TedHuges, I'm using real-world terms. A private citizen is someone not administered or emloyed by the government.

I don't believe that it should be voted down for the good of the few countries that oppress political parties or their entire population in general.

I will not cower in fear of a larger nation. I will stand up and voice my conservative views because he cannot do one damn thing about it.

First of all, it is SHE...look at my name...The QUEENDOM of Labrador. We are a monarchy. We do allow for representation of the people thru a House of Commons, much as the British.

Second, I don't intend to do anything abut you, Spyw, as long as you keep your conservo-creep filth OFF MY SHORES!!
Do what you want in your own country...don't force me to do anything I don't want to do in mine. If we disagree politically, then I respect your right to be wrong, and never 'tween shall we meet.
I was waiting for you to call me a conservo-creep. Just a spur of the moment idea to flame liberals. The way I express my views here do not completly represent me. I'm just saying moderate things to make the CATO acts sound better. I'm actually quite conservative and have pushed it to the point of dictatorship.

I wish Labrador would stop giving liberals a bad name.

TedHuges, I'm using real-world terms. A private citizen is someone not administered or emloyed by the government.

Fair enough :).

I still don't like your attitude to MTV and Nike and forcing criminals into the military though :P

TedHuges, I'm using real-world terms. A private citizen is someone not administered or emloyed by the government.

Fair enough :).

I still don't like your attitude to MTV and Nike and forcing criminals into the military though :P

There are many military jobs that don't involve guns.

And I personally would like to see a system of forced non-military labor for criminals. The alternatives are to give them free room and board for comitting a crime, which is bad, or shooting them, which is also bad.

Our Nation - Protectorate of XtremeRaz and The Region of Neo Hawaii are a free to choose to do what they please with no regulation.

President N|u|x'îmi has this to say about the proposal:

"...We cannot vote as we are not......members of the UN, however, we do have this to say: We can't support a.......proposal made by TGM as it is likely that he would abolish environmental legistation, legalize child labor, give the rich far more power then they desrve, kill thousand of poor people,......in short, undue everything we have done on the ecomonic component[element] of our country..."

if you want individual soverignty dont join the un

The Holy Empire of Deusamicus must oppose with the Cato Acts for several reasons. We primarily disagree with Articles I, VI, and VII.

Article I- That all taxpaying citizens shall be entitled to be represented in the government.

Although we are a democratic empire, we do not beleive democracy can be forced onto people. If people choose to live in a country that does not grant them representation in its government and they have the means to travel elsewhere, they should do so. This is particularly true of nations that are founded with a certain set of ideals or requirements in mind.

Article VI- That government shall neither directly endorse nor censure any religion.

As a Holy Empire, this goes against the ideals we were founded under. Should a religion wish to have a holy country they can call their own, they should be able to do so. This does not neccisarily mean that all people in that nation should be forced to beleive in this religion, but that is certainly a possibility. And why should a nation that merely wishes to endorse a religion be stopped? They do not remove any basic human rights from their citizens. If that nation were a democracy, the citizens would have been the very people deciding to sponsor a religion.

Article VII- That no person shall be enlisted in the armed forces against his will, nor be forced into involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for a crime for which the said individual shall have been duly convicted.


The Holy Empire requires a mandatory term of service for reisdents of our fine nation to be citizens. We do not beleive citizenship to be an unalieble right, but instead a responcibility that must be earned. These Acts would prevent nations such as ourselves from being able to require citizens to serve in the military and earn their citizenship.

Although the Cato Acts have good intentions, we do not beleive they sponsor unalieble rights but instead promote a single view as to what constitues basic rights. We would request that all nations concerned with national rights and independence vote against this proposal and would suggest to The Global Market that each article be made as a separate proposal instead of as a single one.

-The Delegate for the Holy Empire of Deusamicus

And I personally would like to see a system of forced non-military labor for criminals. The alternatives are to give them free room and board for comitting a crime, which is bad, or shooting them, which is also bad.

I agree completely... but if that's your stance, what's with wanting to see criminals 'fry' in the bill of no rights?

I don't believe that it should be voted down for the good of the few countries that oppress political parties or their entire population in general.

I will not cower in fear of a larger nation. I will stand up and voice my conservative views because he cannot do one damn thing about it.

First of all, it is SHE...look at my name...The QUEENDOM of Labrador. We are a monarchy. We do allow for representation of the people thru a House of Commons, much as the British.

Second, I don't intend to do anything abut you, Spyw, as long as you keep your conservo-creep filth OFF MY SHORES!!
Do what you want in your own country...don't force me to do anything I don't want to do in mine. If we disagree politically, then I respect your right to be wrong, and never 'tween shall we meet.
I was waiting for you to call me a conservo-creep. Just a spur of the moment idea to flame liberals. The way I express my views here do not completly represent me. I'm just saying moderate things to make the CATO acts sound better. I'm actually quite conservative and have pushed it to the point of dictatorship.

First of all, I did not call YOU a conservo-creep...I said, "keep your conservo-creep filth off my shores..." I'm calling your ideology "conservo-creep.
Secondly...you even admit to being a conservative yourself, so, if the shoe fits wear it.

Since you accused me of calling you one, when I didn't, I oughta at least have the pleasure of calling you such...you conservo-creep!

[quote=Spyw]I don't believe that it should be voted down for the good of the few countries that oppress political parties or their entire population in general.

I will not cower in fear of a larger nation. I will stand up and voice my conservative views because he cannot do one damn thing about it.

First of all, it is SHE...look at my name...The QUEENDOM of Labrador. We are a monarchy. We do allow for representation of the people thru a House of Commons, much as the British.

Second, I don't intend to do anything abut you, Spyw, as long as you keep your conservo-creep filth OFF MY SHORES!!
Do what you want in your own country...don't force me to do anything I don't want to do in mine. If we disagree politically, then I respect your right to be wrong, and never 'tween shall we meet.
I was waiting for you to call me a conservo-creep. Just a spur of the moment idea to flame liberals. The way I express my views here do not completly represent me. I'm just saying moderate things to make the CATO acts sound better. I'm actually quite conservative and have pushed it to the point of dictatorship.

I'm living up to the point of this game. The point of this game is to run your dream country. Labrador is mine. I dream of a country in which conservo-creeps have no say, and no political power...nor ever any hope of attaining any...so maybe they will just go away.
That's what I really want...for them to just go away.

Hey, if I cannot dissent, right now, in RL, in my own ciuntry, without being labelled a "terrorist," "un-American" or "unpatirotic"...just because I disagree with the current Administration...then I might as well not have a voice or any power in our government. So the pill don't taste so good when it's handed back to you, is that it, conservo-creeps?

It's okay when you repress liberals..but when, in a fictional game and a fictional country...I get the chance to feed you some of your own medicine...you don't like it very much, do ya?

President N|u|x'îmi has this to say about the proposal:

"...We cannot vote as we are not......members of the UN, however, we do have this to say: We can't support a.......proposal made by TGM as it is likely that he would abolish environmental legistation, legalize child labor, give the rich far more power then they desrve, kill thousand of poor people,......in short, undue everything we have done on the ecomonic component[element] of our country..."

Exactly!
Hey, I don't like the resolution, because it seeks to prevent me from running my country as I wish...my dream country...which is the whole pont of ths game.

More to the point, the fact that it was proposed by The Global Market...only made it that much eaiser for me to decide to actively oppose the measure.

Satisfied now, Global?? Yes...I already opposed this based on it's content...but the fact YOU proposed only made me oppose it that much more.

I wouldn't have supported it no matter WHO proposed it...but the fact that it was YOU only made my opposition that much more solid.

i think we should all vote FOR it becuase it gives lots of good stuff to the people. thats all i have to say, but i wanna say it lots.

I'm not the only nation Global has pissed off with his style of argument and ideology, by the way.

Labrador you're the only person on here who swears at me on a regular basis.

True, but he is right. Plenty of people are unhappy with you.
And you know, since you love freedom of speech, grin and bear.

I would support the Cato except that it's not liberal enough for me. A few more tweaks perhaps?

[quote=Spyw]I don't believe that it should be voted down for the good of the few countries that oppress political parties or their entire population in general.

I will not cower in fear of a larger nation. I will stand up and voice my conservative views because he cannot do one damn thing about it.

First of all, it is SHE...look at my name...The QUEENDOM of Labrador. We are a monarchy. We do allow for representation of the people thru a House of Commons, much as the British.

Second, I don't intend to do anything abut you, Spyw, as long as you keep your conservo-creep filth OFF MY SHORES!!
Do what you want in your own country...don't force me to do anything I don't want to do in mine. If we disagree politically, then I respect your right to be wrong, and never 'tween shall we meet.
I was waiting for you to call me a conservo-creep. Just a spur of the moment idea to flame liberals. The way I express my views here do not completly represent me. I'm just saying moderate things to make the CATO acts sound better. I'm actually quite conservative and have pushed it to the point of dictatorship.

I'm living up to the point of this game. The point of this game is to run your dream country. Labrador is mine. I dream of a country in which conservo-creeps have no say, and no political power...nor ever any hope of attaining any...so maybe they will just go away.
That's what I really want...for them to just go away.

Hey, if I cannot dissent, right now, in RL, in my own ciuntry, without being labelled a "terrorist," "un-American" or "unpatirotic"...just because I disagree with the current Administration...then I might as well not have a voice or any power in our government. So the pill don't taste so good when it's handed back to you, is that it, conservo-creeps?

It's okay when you repress liberals..but when, in a fictional game and a fictional country...I get the chance to feed you some of your own medicine...you don't like it very much, do ya?
I find it laughable that you consider yourself liberal and at the same time don't believe in free speach. Unlike the left the conservatives aren't lieing hypocritacle theives. Whether you like them or not you know where they stand because they tell you where to your face.

Lord save us from the archconservatives and archliberals, what is needed is more Moderates.

To The Esteemed Members Of The UN:

A valid point has been brought up, that if complete individual sovereignity is desired, then perhaps we should re-think participating in the UN. It is true that compromise is a necessity for this organization, however, the point of the UN is not to force one nation's politics onto another. The point of the UN is to foster understanding and cooperation, as far as I understand it. The only thing Cato seems to be fostering is resentment. While I appreciate the idea of uniformity within the UN, Lolly Pop Land does not want uniformity at the price of unity. This resolution is not about democracy. It's about outright anarchy. With the coming and going of whoever, whenever, extradition treaties would become even more crucial, but there is no provision in Cato for that eventuality. If the poor are not taxed in a country, does that mean that the poor are not tax-paying citizens and therefore not subject to the rights outlined? If a person decides to go on a killing spree, and feels that the killing spree was for religious purposes, do we have no right to prosecute this person, because it would be censuring his/her religion?

There are still far too many problems with this resolution. Still voting no.

Love and Lollies,

Nikki The Younger, Delegate, Lolly Pop Land

It's annoying.

Also, we have looked over the proposal, and don't see anything majorly wrong with it. Our nation is new, and relatively small, but we will be voting on this issue, one way or another.

All we have seen so far in this thread against the issue is a lot of seemingly innane ramble and blind disregard to reason, while the support for the subject appears mainly level-headed and consice. We do applaud some of the newer posts for raising legitimate arguments or points of interest, we will review it and consider your words carefully. Thank you.

This sort of behavior will affect our nation's vote - a country's words speak loudly of the people in control - after consultation with our UN Regional Delegate.

All we have seen so far in this thread against the issue is a lot of seemingly innane ramble and blind disregard to reason, while the support for the subject appears mainly level-headed and consice.

Please do not take Labrador's words as representative of the 'anti' camp.

[quote=Spyw]I don't believe that it should be voted down for the good of the few countries that oppress political parties or their entire population in general.

I will not cower in fear of a larger nation. I will stand up and voice my conservative views because he cannot do one damn thing about it.

First of all, it is SHE...look at my name...The QUEENDOM of Labrador. We are a monarchy. We do allow for representation of the people thru a House of Commons, much as the British.

Second, I don't intend to do anything abut you, Spyw, as long as you keep your conservo-creep filth OFF MY SHORES!!
Do what you want in your own country...don't force me to do anything I don't want to do in mine. If we disagree politically, then I respect your right to be wrong, and never 'tween shall we meet.
I was waiting for you to call me a conservo-creep. Just a spur of the moment idea to flame liberals. The way I express my views here do not completly represent me. I'm just saying moderate things to make the CATO acts sound better. I'm actually quite conservative and have pushed it to the point of dictatorship.

I'm living up to the point of this game. The point of this game is to run your dream country. Labrador is mine. I dream of a country in which conservo-creeps have no say, and no political power...nor ever any hope of attaining any...so maybe they will just go away.
That's what I really want...for them to just go away.

Hey, if I cannot dissent, right now, in RL, in my own ciuntry, without being labelled a "terrorist," "un-American" or "unpatirotic"...just because I disagree with the current Administration...then I might as well not have a voice or any power in our government. So the pill don't taste so good when it's handed back to you, is that it, conservo-creeps?

It's okay when you repress liberals..but when, in a fictional game and a fictional country...I get the chance to feed you some of your own medicine...you don't like it very much, do ya?
I find it laughable that you consider yourself liberal and at the same time don't believe in free speach. Unlike the left the conservatives aren't lieing hypocritacle theives. Whether you like them or not you know where they stand because they tell you where to your face.

First, learn to spell...it's H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-I-C-A-L.
Second, yeah, sure...they tell you...right!! Can you spell E-N-R-O-N??
Yeah, they throw the junke who hold up a 7-Eleven for 50 bucks and a Mars Bar for 25 years, but Kenny Lay, (a big Bush supporter and crony, by the way) who ripped off thousands of employees of their retirement savings...where's he at? Think he's doing the perp walk? Think he EVER will??
Yeah...the conservo-creeps...they stand for the rich. They are the party of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich. Screw the little guy...screw the little guy who never gets ahead because he plays by the rules! Let the big-money political contributors (who contribute to the Republicans) get away with bloody murder!! THAT'S the ideology of the conservo-creeps...which is why I hate them so bitterly!

Has anyone else here noticed how aggressively they are going after Martha Stewart (a Democrat) who hurt very few people with her little shenanigans with ImClone...but Kenny Lay (a Republicn, Bush supporter, and crony) who screwed THOUSANDS out of every retirement cent they had...seems to be getting a "get out of jail, free" card??

All we have seen so far in this thread against the issue is a lot of seemingly innane ramble and blind disregard to reason, while the support for the subject appears mainly level-headed and consice.

Please do not take Labrador's words as representative of the 'anti' camp.
That's right. Don't take my word as representative of anyone except ME. I never claimed to speak for anyone else, nor would I presume to do so.

Change the free speech right to an absolute right -- none of these "exceptions" -- and you have my vote and the 44 votes of my archipeligo.

First, learn to spell...it's H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-I-C-A-L.
Second, yeah, sure...they tell you...right!! Can you spell E-N-R-O-N??
Yeah, they throw the junke who hold up a 7-Eleven for 50 bucks and a Mars Bar for 25 years, but Kenny Lay, (a big Bush supporter and crony, by the way) who ripped off thousands of employees of their retirement savings...where's he at? Think he's doing the perp walk? Think he EVER will??
Yeah...the conservo-creeps...they stand for the rich. They are the party of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich. Screw the little guy...screw the little guy who never gets ahead because he plays by the rules! Let the big-money political contributors (who contribute to the Republicans) get away with bloody murder!! THAT'S the ideology of the conservo-creeps...which is why I hate them so bitterly!

Has anyone else here noticed how aggressively they are going after Martha Stewart (a Democrat) who hurt very few people with her little shenanigans with ImClone...but Kenny Lay (a Republicn, Bush supporter, and crony) who screwed THOUSANDS out of every retirement cent they had...seems to be getting a "get out of jail, free" card??

You might want to check your own spelling there ;) (bolds are mine, not Labrador's) While I completely agree that proper spelling is imperative, people do slip up (feel free to point out my mistakes in this post). I really only get bugged by it when it is incessant. (Mind you, "lieing hypocritacle theives" didn't impress me either, I'll give you that... three incorrect words in a row)

And if you don't want conservative nations (calling them conservo-creeps just... detracts from the seriousness of your arguments, however valid they may or may not be) in your region, have you password-protected it? If so, then you should have no worries about conservative-minded nations trying to ruin your region or filthy your shores.

I'm living up to the point of this game. The point of this game is to run your dream country. Labrador is mine. I dream of a country in which conservo-creeps have no say, and no political power...nor ever any hope of attaining any...so maybe they will just go away.
That's what I really want...for them to just go away.

Hey, if I cannot dissent, right now, in RL, in my own ciuntry, without being labelled a "terrorist," "un-American" or "unpatirotic"...just because I disagree with the current Administration...then I might as well not have a voice or any power in our government. So the pill don't taste so good when it's handed back to you, is that it, conservo-creeps?

It's okay when you repress liberals..but when, in a fictional game and a fictional country...I get the chance to feed you some of your own medicine...you don't like it very much, do ya?

I'd just like to say that I'm sorry if you feel conservatives oppress you, but that's not the way it is everywhere. Here, at my school (it's a boarding school, too, so I can't escape), I am in the minority as a conservative; and let me tell you, being part of an overall majority and a local minority has to be worse than merely being in an overall minority. You, at least, can claim righteous indignation. If I say that I feel I am being mistreated by the liberals, no one ever takes me seriously, because I'm in the 'majority.'

I've had some pretty awful things said to me. I've had the 'ideals' of destroy-the-environment, shoot-guns-and-kill-things, use-as-much-oil-as-possible, take-over-and-oppress-foreign-countries, etc, projected onto me, even though, as I said, I am not Republican but conservative. Once, during a discussion of politics in a classroom setting, I voiced my conservative view about I don't remember what, and was met with blank stares before someone piped up, "No one cares what you think," and the liberals continued arguing with the libertarians. And the teacher was just as bad as the rest of them. He didn't even tell the kid off.

My point here is, that just because you have experienced repression and hatred in your life from "conservatives" doesn't mean that you should return it to the group once you are in the majority. You don't know Spyw's background, and although the delegate has been very rude, there's no reason to throw that rudeness back. That just leads to more conflict.

First, learn to spell...it's H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-I-C-A-L.
Second, yeah, sure...they tell you...right!! Can you spell E-N-R-O-N??
Yeah, they throw the junke who hold up a 7-Eleven for 50 bucks and a Mars Bar for 25 years, but Kenny Lay, (a big Bush supporter and crony, by the way) who ripped off thousands of employees of their retirement savings...where's he at? Think he's doing the perp walk? Think he EVER will??
Yeah...the conservo-creeps...they stand for the rich. They are the party of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich. Screw the little guy...screw the little guy who never gets ahead because he plays by the rules! Let the big-money political contributors (who contribute to the Republicans) get away with bloody murder!! THAT'S the ideology of the conservo-creeps...which is why I hate them so bitterly!

Has anyone else here noticed how aggressively they are going after Martha Stewart (a Democrat) who hurt very few people with her little shenanigans with ImClone...but Kenny Lay (a Republicn, Bush supporter, and crony) who screwed THOUSANDS out of every retirement cent they had...seems to be getting a "get out of jail, free" card??

You might want to check your own spelling there ;) (bolds are mine, not Labrador's) While I completely agree that proper spelling is imperative, people do slip up (feel free to point out my mistakes in this post). I really only get bugged by it when it is incessant. (Mind you, "lieing hypocritacle theives" didn't impress me either, I'll give you that... three incorrect words in a row)

And if you don't want conservative nations (calling them conservo-creeps just... detracts from the seriousness of your arguments, however valid they may or may not be) in your region, have you password-protected it? If so, then you should have no worries about conservative-minded nations trying to ruin your region or filthy your shores.

First of all, my misspellings are typos, not actual misspellings. There's a difference.
Second...no, we have not passworded our Region, and we won't do so, for it would impede growth. What we HAVE done...is to take away the ability of the UN Delegate to access Regional Controls. I, as Founder, am the only person who may access them. Thus, it is not possible to region-crash my Region.
And any conservo-creeps who come in to override our duly-elected UN Delegate can be dealt with very swiftly.
As a check and balance on this power that I, alone wield for our region...there is a Constitution in place, and a Regional Council. Per our Constitution, no nation may be kicked out without a vote of Regional Council, except in cases of emergency, or obvious greifing. And, when I do exercise those powers, my decision to kick can be appealed to Regional Council, and if they overturn my decision, I then, by our Constitution, have to unban the nation(s) in question.

My point in all this debate is...were this UN Resolution enforceable (which it isn't) this would undermine our Regional government apparatus, as well as my own nation's governmental apparatus in a manner deleterious to the purpose for which my nation and region were founded...and this I will not tolerate.

Were this Resolution to pass, I'd pull a Saddam, thumbing my nose at the U.N. and go on doing exactly as I pleased in my Region and nation, and to hell with all the conservo-creeps. Let's see them try and MAKE me follow the proscriptions of this particular Resolution with which I disagree. Good luck!

As to my Region...conservative nations are welcome to come there, so long as they agree to abide by the terms of our Constitution...and per that Constitution, they have no voting rights on matters of Regional concern. Because, to vote in my Region, one must maintain Above Average or better in Civil Rights and/or Political Freedoms...and there is no such thing as a conservative nation that has such scores.

We, as a liberal region, hold civil rights to be of the utmost importance. Conservatives, on the other hand, wish to trample Civil Rights...just another reason to hate them!

I'm living up to the point of this game. The point of this game is to run your dream country. Labrador is mine. I dream of a country in which conservo-creeps have no say, and no political power...nor ever any hope of attaining any...so maybe they will just go away.
That's what I really want...for them to just go away.

Hey, if I cannot dissent, right now, in RL, in my own ciuntry, without being labelled a "terrorist," "un-American" or "unpatirotic"...just because I disagree with the current Administration...then I might as well not have a voice or any power in our government. So the pill don't taste so good when it's handed back to you, is that it, conservo-creeps?

It's okay when you repress liberals..but when, in a fictional game and a fictional country...I get the chance to feed you some of your own medicine...you don't like it very much, do ya?

I'd just like to say that I'm sorry if you feel conservatives oppress you, but that's not the way it is everywhere. Here, at my school (it's a boarding school, too, so I can't escape), I am in the minority as a conservative; and let me tell you, being part of an overall majority and a local minority has to be worse than merely being in an overall minority. You, at least, can claim righteous indignation. If I say that I feel I am being mistreated by the liberals, no one ever takes me seriously, because I'm in the 'majority.'

I've had some pretty awful things said to me. I've had the 'ideals' of destroy-the-environment, shoot-guns-and-kill-things, use-as-much-oil-as-possible, take-over-and-oppress-foreign-countries, etc, projected onto me, even though, as I said, I am not Republican but conservative. Once, during a discussion of politics in a classroom setting, I voiced my conservative view about I don't remember what, and was met with blank stares before someone piped up, "No one cares what you think," and the liberals continued arguing with the libertarians. And the teacher was just as bad as the rest of them. He didn't even tell the kid off.

My point here is, that just because you have experienced repression and hatred in your life from "conservatives" doesn't mean that you should return it to the group once you are in the majority. You don't know Spyw's background, and although the delegate has been very rude, there's no reason to throw that rudeness back. That just leads to more conflict.

First...yes, I feel conservatives DO oppress me. They need to keep their noses out of my personal life, out of my bedroom...and quit trying to codify Christian dogma into civil law. Then, I might not hate them as badly as I do. I still disagree with their economic policies...but it is the social agenda of the right wing that REALLY pisses me off! I'll be damned if they aren't telling me that they alone know what's best for me! And I'll be damned if ANYONE other than me is gonna tell me what's best for me! I'm 32 years old, and I don't have to answer to anyone I don't want to anymore...not even my boss! I can always choose to find another job if I don't want to answer to the boss. Fact is, I generally like and get along with my boss, so this isn't an issue...but, the point is I don't HAVE to answer to anyone I don't want to...one of the privileges of adulthood.

Second...where do you assume liberals are an overall minority? Do not project your own views as the view of the majority. Last I checked, Gore got more votes (popular) than did Bush. And right now, Bush's approval ratings are at 50% and dropping. In fact, a couple of Democrats right now have higher poll numbers than Bush, were the election to be held today, Bush might find himself on the unemployment line...poetic justice if ever there was any!

And I'm not surprised by the reaction you got in your classroom...because I, as a liberal, can also say...I don't care what conservatives think...I don't want to hear what they think, either. So I'm not surprised that someone up and said it!

And as far as returning it to the oppressors once I'm in the majority? Hell, maybe...just maybe it'll teach them a lesson if we do! Maybe they will understand how it feels to be oppressed, and thus refrain from it in the future...wishful thinking I know, because the entire point of conservatism is to repress and oppress others.

As to my rudeness...I treat others as they treat me. They are rude to me? They get the rudeness back in spades! They want me to be nice?? Then they can start by being nice. Of course, I understand it isn't really possible for a conservative to be nice...niceness goes against everythng conservatives stand for, doesn't it?

As to it leading to more conflict...I say, bring it on...I can take it...Can you?

Freedom and Pride is a nation founded upon Chrsitian principles
Um, isn't pride one of the seven deadly sins?

Freedom and Pride is a nation founded upon Chrsitian principles
Um, isn't pride one of the seven deadly sins?

teehee

Yep, it is. But those sins are Christian sins. Perhaps Freedom and Pride are both virtues in the Chrsitian religion ;) :twisted: :lol:


Reference (taken from here (http://deadlysins.com/)

Pride is excessive belief in one's own abilities, that interferes with the individual's recognition of the grace of God. It has been called the sin from which all others arise. Pride is also known as Vanity.

Envy is the desire for others' traits, status, abilities, or situation.

Gluttony is an inordinate desire to consume more than that which one requires.

Lust is an inordinate craving for the pleasures of the body.

Anger is manifested in the individual who spurns love and opts instead for fury. It is also known as Wrath.

Greed is the desire for material wealth or gain, ignoring the realm of the spiritual. It is also called Avarice or Covetousness.

Sloth is the avoidance of physical or spiritual work.

We would have supported this resolution, but for the fact that it bans drafts. We wholeheartedly support everything else in the bill, but not that part, and therefore we cannot vote for it.

Drafts are sometimes neccesary to protect the people from efforts to destroy their liberty.

We would have supported this resolution, but for the fact that it bans drafts. We wholeheartedly support everything else in the bill, but not that part, and therefore we cannot vote for it.

Drafts are sometimes neccesary to protect the people from efforts to destroy their liberty.

First...yes, I feel conservatives DO oppress me. They need to keep their noses out of my personal life, out of my bedroom...and quit trying to codify Christian dogma into civil law. Then, I might not hate them as badly as I do. I still disagree with their economic policies...but it is the social agenda of the right wing that REALLY pisses me off! I'll be damned if they aren't telling me that they alone know what's best for me! And I'll be damned if ANYONE other than me is gonna tell me what's best for me! I'm 32 years old, and I don't have to answer to anyone I don't want to anymore...not even my boss! I can always choose to find another job if I don't want to answer to the boss. Fact is, I generally like and get along with my boss, so this isn't an issue...but, the point is I don't HAVE to answer to anyone I don't want to...one of the privileges of adulthood.

Second...where do you assume liberals are an overall minority? Do not project your own views as the view of the majority. Last I checked, Gore got more votes (popular) than did Bush. And right now, Bush's approval ratings are at 50% and dropping. In fact, a couple of Democrats right now have higher poll numbers than Bush, were the election to be held today, Bush might find himself on the unemployment line...poetic justice if ever there was any!

And I'm not surprised by the reaction you got in your classroom...because I, as a liberal, can also say...I don't care what conservatives think...I don't want to hear what they think, either. So I'm not surprised that someone up and said it!

And as far as returning it to the oppressors once I'm in the majority? Hell, maybe...just maybe it'll teach them a lesson if we do! Maybe they will understand how it feels to be oppressed, and thus refrain from it in the future...wishful thinking I know, because the entire point of conservatism is to repress and oppress others.

As to my rudeness...I treat others as they treat me. They are rude to me? They get the rudeness back in spades! They want me to be nice?? Then they can start by being nice. Of course, I understand it isn't really possible for a conservative to be nice...niceness goes against everythng conservatives stand for, doesn't it?

As to it leading to more conflict...I say, bring it on...I can take it...Can you?

You disappoint me, Labrador, and contradict yourself in your own statement. I think you need to seriously rethink your stereotypes of conservatives. I don't believe I have been rude to you, and I apologize if you think I have, because I never intended any of my posts to be rude; yet you state that as a conservative, I am incapable of kindness, while I believe that that is all I have shown you.

My point in my past post was that I have been repressed and oppressed by liberals, for no reason other than their stereotypes and their experiences with other conservatives. I think it is unfair that anyone be judged for their beliefs, and that is why I have attempted not to do so. I think I'm entitled to be treated in the same way.

You complain about conservatives. What do you have against them? The fact that they force their values onto you, right? And probably, also, their intolerance for non-conservatives? At the age of 32 I think you should probably have learned to step away from yourself and judge objectively by now - from my current age of 16, I have been doing this for more than six years. You are showing far more intolerance and bigotry than most people I know, and I am forced to ask the question, how did this happen?

What happened to you that you are now so bitter towards conservatives? Someone must have done something incredibly awful to you, that you hold such hatred inside yourself towards a group that composes perhaps a third of the world? (Conservatives, now, not Republicans). Do you want to talk? Do you need a hug, or perhaps a nice hot cup of peppermint tea?


As per your question: I may be a conservative, but I am still a pacifist. Even were my nation large and powerful enough to squish your entire region under my thumb like a bug, I would not want to. However, I take that threat seriously, and have alerted Alquador's military, the citizens' militia, and the Arms Manufacturing industry to the possibility of attack. If there is a conflict, you will make the first move - but we will fight to the last.

PS I got liberals as an overall minority from the hometowns of my friends and myself. All of my friends are at least liberal, some libertarian, some more than that, and all of us come from very conservative hometowns. Also, the rating that you cite is the War in Iraq approval rating, not the Bush approval rating, which is still above 60%.

1. You have to believe the AIDS virus is spread by a
lack of federal funding.

2. You have to believe that the same teacher who can't
teach 4th graders how to read is somehow qualified to
teach those same kids about sex.

3. You have to believe that guns, in the hands of
law-abiding Americans, are more of a threat than U.S.
nuclear weapons technology in the hands of Chinese
communists.

4. You have to believe that there was no art before
Federal funding.

5. You have to believe that global temperatures are
less affected by cyclical, documented changes in the
earth's climate, and more affected by yuppies driving
SUVs.

6. You have to believe that gender roles are
artificial, but being homosexual is natural.

7. You have to be against capital punishment, but
support abortion on demand.

8. You have to believe that businesses create
oppression and governments create prosperity.

9. You have to believe that hunters don't care about
nature, but loony activists from Seattle do.

10. You have to believe that self-esteem is more
important than actually doing something to earn it.

11. You have to believe the military, not corrupt
politicians start wars.

12. You have to believe the NRA is bad, because it
supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the
ACLU is good, because it supports certain parts of the
Constitution.

13. You have to believe that taxes are too low, but
ATM fees are too high.

14. You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and
Gloria Steinem are more important to American history
than Thomas Jefferson, General Robert E. Lee or Thomas
Edison.

15. You have to believe that standardized tests are
racist, but racial quotas and set-asides aren't.

16. You have to believe that the only reason socialism
hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried, is because the
right people haven't been in charge.

17. You have to believe that homosexual parades
displaying drag, transvestites and bestiality should
be constitutionally protected, and manger scenes at
Christmas should be illegal.

How to be a conservative:

1) You must believe that restating the same arguement makes it more true each time it's stated.

Naming no HCs.

Not when their speech is full of nothing but lies that get 300 soldiers and countless innocent civilians killed for no damn good reason...and not when their economic policies cut 10 million jobs and send a robust economy right down the porcelain log flume...all to the benefit of their cronies! :evil: :evil:

I know of no civilian casualties in the Iraqi-American War. I do not think there has been any documentation of civilian casualties. With all due respect, I think the idea of massive civilian casualties is a myth. If we can guide bombs to within an inch of its target, we can certainly miss concentrations of civilians.

the Great Dausmaniac :mrgreen:

The CATO acts are an injustice to all nations, a deliberate and blatent attempt by a few democracies to force their naive ideals and style of government down the throat of other nations. Every government has the inaliable right to govern their country as they see fit, and the nations that endorse this resolution seek to take that right away. I've voted against the CATO acts, and I advise all other nations to do the same.

By urging other nations to do the same, aren't you just trying to impose your views on other nations, when each one has the right to govern their country as they see fit? *smirks*

First...yes, I feel conservatives DO oppress me. They need to keep their noses out of my personal life, out of my bedroom...and quit trying to codify Christian dogma into civil law. Then, I might not hate them as badly as I do. I still disagree with their economic policies...but it is the social agenda of the right wing that REALLY pisses me off! I'll be damned if they aren't telling me that they alone know what's best for me! And I'll be damned if ANYONE other than me is gonna tell me what's best for me! I'm 32 years old, and I don't have to answer to anyone I don't want to anymore...not even my boss! I can always choose to find another job if I don't want to answer to the boss. Fact is, I generally like and get along with my boss, so this isn't an issue...but, the point is I don't HAVE to answer to anyone I don't want to...one of the privileges of adulthood.

Second...where do you assume liberals are an overall minority? Do not project your own views as the view of the majority. Last I checked, Gore got more votes (popular) than did Bush. And right now, Bush's approval ratings are at 50% and dropping. In fact, a couple of Democrats right now have higher poll numbers than Bush, were the election to be held today, Bush might find himself on the unemployment line...poetic justice if ever there was any!

And I'm not surprised by the reaction you got in your classroom...because I, as a liberal, can also say...I don't care what conservatives think...I don't want to hear what they think, either. So I'm not surprised that someone up and said it!

And as far as returning it to the oppressors once I'm in the majority? Hell, maybe...just maybe it'll teach them a lesson if we do! Maybe they will understand how it feels to be oppressed, and thus refrain from it in the future...wishful thinking I know, because the entire point of conservatism is to repress and oppress others.

As to my rudeness...I treat others as they treat me. They are rude to me? They get the rudeness back in spades! They want me to be nice?? Then they can start by being nice. Of course, I understand it isn't really possible for a conservative to be nice...niceness goes against everythng conservatives stand for, doesn't it?

As to it leading to more conflict...I say, bring it on...I can take it...Can you?

You disappoint me, Labrador, and contradict yourself in your own statement. I think you need to seriously rethink your stereotypes of conservatives. I don't believe I have been rude to you, and I apologize if you think I have, because I never intended any of my posts to be rude; yet you state that as a conservative, I am incapable of kindness, while I believe that that is all I have shown you.

My point in my past post was that I have been repressed and oppressed by liberals, for no reason other than their stereotypes and their experiences with other conservatives. I think it is unfair that anyone be judged for their beliefs, and that is why I have attempted not to do so. I think I'm entitled to be treated in the same way.

You complain about conservatives. What do you have against them? The fact that they force their values onto you, right? And probably, also, their intolerance for non-conservatives? At the age of 32 I think you should probably have learned to step away from yourself and judge objectively by now - from my current age of 16, I have been doing this for more than six years. You are showing far more intolerance and bigotry than most people I know, and I am forced to ask the question, how did this happen?

What happened to you that you are now so bitter towards conservatives? Someone must have done something incredibly awful to you, that you hold such hatred inside yourself towards a group that composes perhaps a third of the world? (Conservatives, now, not Republicans). Do you want to talk? Do you need a hug, or perhaps a nice hot cup of peppermint tea?
No, I need conservatives to keep their damn noses outta MY PRIVATE LIFE!! My real beef is with groups like the Christian Coalition, which have unified behind the Republican Party (conservatives) and have bought and paid for legislation that continues to repress and oppress sexual minorities such as myself!
I have been denied employment, housing, even basic medical care sometimes...just because of conservatives codifying their "moral values" (read:prejudice) into civil law! I have been denied my basic human dignity by these people, and this is why I hate them with every fiber of my being, and I vow to fight them till the day I die! :evil: :evil:

As to the rest...when I said bring it on...I can take it...I was referring to a war of words...not a war of nations. I've no intention whatsoever of attacking your nation or any others...so you may close the doors of your missile silos. (We never even opened ours.)

And yes, you are correct...you have never been rude to me. So I apologize. It's just that conservatives, in general, just ABSOLUTELY MAKE ME SEE RED!!!!! :evil: :evil: :evil:

As I said, I hate them with every fiber of my being...because of the hardships they and their bigotry has caused in my own life! It isn't fair and it isn't right!

People like me do not ask for "special rights." We ask, rather, for the SAME rights all other citizens take for granted. We ask to be judged upon our skills, abilities, merits, experience, and the content of our characters...and not our sexual orientation or gender identity.

Yet, time and again, we are denied jobs (legally) for no reason other than the fact that we...by choice or by biology (I'm not gonna debate that here, it's WAY off-topic) are not breeders. This is wrong. And conservatives continue to push for ever more legislation to oppress and repress us...to deny us the same rights our other fellow citizens take for granted...all in the name of "family values" which is really nothing more than code words for bigotry, predjudice, and hatred.

So now you know why I so bitterly hate conservatives.

Not when their speech is full of nothing but lies that get 300 soldiers and countless innocent civilians killed for no damn good reason...and not when their economic policies cut 10 million jobs and send a robust economy right down the porcelain log flume...all to the benefit of their cronies! :evil: :evil:

I know of no civilian casualties in the Iraqi-American War. I do not think there has been any documentation of civilian casualties. With all due respect, I think the idea of massive civilian casualties is a myth. If we can guide bombs to within an inch of its target, we can certainly miss concentrations of civilians.

the Great Dausmaniac :mrgreen:

Because I need to go to bed, I'm not going to look at each individual site, but try this google search (http://www.google.ca/search?q=iraqi+civilian+casualties&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&meta=) and tell me that civilian casualties are a myth. Yes, we'd like to think that the military doesn't err, but as the friendly fire incident in Afghanistan and the bombing of innocent Kosovars by mistake have shown us, it happens all too often.

Not when their speech is full of nothing but lies that get 300 soldiers and countless innocent civilians killed for no damn good reason...and not when their economic policies cut 10 million jobs and send a robust economy right down the porcelain log flume...all to the benefit of their cronies! :evil: :evil:

I know of no civilian casualties in the Iraqi-American War. I do not think there has been any documentation of civilian casualties. With all due respect, I think the idea of massive civilian casualties is a myth. If we can guide bombs to within an inch of its target, we can certainly miss concentrations of civilians.

the Great Dausmaniac :mrgreen:

Because I need to go to bed, I'm not going to look at each individual site, but try this google search (http://www.google.ca/search?q=iraqi+civilian+casualties&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&meta=) and tell me that civilian casualties are a myth. Yes, we'd like to think that the military doesn't err, but as the friendly fire incident in Afghanistan and the bombing of innocent Kosovars by mistake have shown us, it happens all too often.

Let's also not forget the four Canadian soldiers accidentally bombed in Kabul!!
Does someone SERIOUSLY expect me to believe there are absolutely NO civilian casualties in the Iraq war...that no one, EVER just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time?

According to www.iraqometer.com, there were thousands of IRAQI civilian casualties . . . and we claim that the war there was for the benefit of Iraq and we kill thousands of them. And after hostilities "ended", in the past two weeks alone, Iraqi police officers have been shot, a civilian running away is shot, and there has to have been more I haven't heard of yet.
"There never was a good war or a bad peace."
Benjamin Franklin.

Not when their speech is full of nothing but lies that get 300 soldiers and countless innocent civilians killed for no damn good reason...and not when their economic policies cut 10 million jobs and send a robust economy right down the porcelain log flume...all to the benefit of their cronies! :evil: :evil:

I know of no civilian casualties in the Iraqi-American War. I do not think there has been any documentation of civilian casualties. With all due respect, I think the idea of massive civilian casualties is a myth. If we can guide bombs to within an inch of its target, we can certainly miss concentrations of civilians.

the Great Dausmaniac :mrgreen:

Because I need to go to bed, I'm not going to look at each individual site, but try this google search (http://www.google.ca/search?q=iraqi+civilian+casualties&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&meta=) and tell me that civilian casualties are a myth. Yes, we'd like to think that the military doesn't err, but as the friendly fire incident in Afghanistan and the bombing of innocent Kosovars by mistake have shown us, it happens all too often.

Let's also not forget the four Canadian soldiers accidentally bombed in Kabul!!
Does someone SERIOUSLY expect me to believe there are absolutely NO civilian casualties in the Iraq war...that no one, EVER just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time?

hehe, um... Labrador... the four Canadian soldiers accidentally bombed in Kabul was the friendly fire incident in Afghanistan that I mentioned. :)

Not when their speech is full of nothing but lies that get 300 soldiers and countless innocent civilians killed for no damn good reason...and not when their economic policies cut 10 million jobs and send a robust economy right down the porcelain log flume...all to the benefit of their cronies! :evil: :evil:

I know of no civilian casualties in the Iraqi-American War. I do not think there has been any documentation of civilian casualties. With all due respect, I think the idea of massive civilian casualties is a myth. If we can guide bombs to within an inch of its target, we can certainly miss concentrations of civilians.

the Great Dausmaniac :mrgreen:

Because I need to go to bed, I'm not going to look at each individual site, but try this google search (http://www.google.ca/search?q=iraqi+civilian+casualties&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&meta=) and tell me that civilian casualties are a myth. Yes, we'd like to think that the military doesn't err, but as the friendly fire incident in Afghanistan and the bombing of innocent Kosovars by mistake have shown us, it happens all too often.

Let's also not forget the four Canadian soldiers accidentally bombed in Kabul!!
Does someone SERIOUSLY expect me to believe there are absolutely NO civilian casualties in the Iraq war...that no one, EVER just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time?

hehe, um... Labrador... the four Canadian soldiers accidentally bombed in Kabul was the friendly fire incident in Afghanistan that I mentioned. :)

OK, then...what about that wedding party in Afghanistan where about 40 people (civilians) got killed by a bomb, because, as tradition holds, they were firing guns into the air? Remember that one?

I wish liberals had another country besides America to complain...

Europe had 19k deaths b/c of a heatwave......they are sooooo much better than us...
heat in the US????? I doubt 19,000 people would die in the USofA..
a little thing I like to call AC..

W in 04

:?

My first statement must have been lost in all this blathering.

I've re-introduced the first Cato act, which deals with taxation and representation. (Search under my name if you can, it's in with a mess of silly proposals right now) I've modified it so that it can incorporate both liberal democratic states as well as oligarchies and possibly even anarchies -- if you're taxed, you must be represented in whatever way the type of government you have will allow (to the fullest, of course).

I wish liberals had another country besides America to complain...

Europe had 19k deaths b/c of a heatwave......they are sooooo much better than us...
heat in the US????? I doubt 19,000 people would die in the USofA..
a little thing I like to call AC..

W in 04

We wouldn't complain about America, if it was led by a competent person. If the conservo-creeps would just go away, and quit trying to foist off their hatred, bigotry and prejudice on others by calling it "family values" If they wouldn't take and lock the junkie who ripped off a 7-Eleven for 50 bucks and a Mars bar for 25 years, while looking completely the other way when a crony like Kenny Lay screws THOUSANDS of people outta their retirements...and gets no punishment...

The problem is, under conservatism...the big, rich pricks always win...and ALWAYS at the expense of Joe Sixpack. We are sick of the lies, the cheating, the cronyism...

All we really want is for the Average Joe to have a fair shake. He doesn't get a fair shake when conservo-creeps have power...so we bitch about America.

We didn't bitch about America when Clinton was Pres....

You realize, of course, that every UN resolution could be seen as an attack on individual national sovereignty, right?

You realize, of course, that every UN resolution could be seen as an attack on individual national sovereignty, right?

Yes...but not every Resolution is an attack on MY nation's soverignty.

You realize, of course, that every UN resolution could be seen as an attack on individual national sovereignty, right?

Yes...but not every Resolution is an attack on MY nation's soverignty.

So you're a hypocrite that defies UN resolutions when you disagree with them but otherwise believes the UN to be very useful. You know, you have more in common with President Bush than you realize.

BTW the reason Clinton succeeded is because he was more libertarian than most democrats. Pro-NAFTA, pro-WTO, etc. Though his suit against Microsoft is hte primary cause of the NASDAQ debacle which began 10 months before Bush took office.

You realize, of course, that every UN resolution could be seen as an attack on individual national sovereignty, right?

Yes...but not every Resolution is an attack on MY nation's soverignty.

So you're a hypocrite that defies UN resolutions when you disagree with them but otherwise believes the UN to be very useful. You know, you have more in common with President Bush than you realize.

BTW the reason Clinton succeeded is because he was more libertarian than most democrats. Pro-NAFTA, pro-WTO, etc. Though his suit against Microsoft is hte primary cause of the NASDAQ debacle which began 10 months before Bush took office.

The Microsoft suit wasn't really something Clinton wanted to do...he was pressured into it by corporations like Netscape, et al.

You realize, of course, that every UN resolution could be seen as an attack on individual national sovereignty, right?

Yes...but not every Resolution is an attack on MY nation's soverignty.

So you're a hypocrite that defies UN resolutions when you disagree with them but otherwise believes the UN to be very useful. You know, you have more in common with President Bush than you realize.

BTW the reason Clinton succeeded is because he was more libertarian than most democrats. Pro-NAFTA, pro-WTO, etc. Though his suit against Microsoft is hte primary cause of the NASDAQ debacle which began 10 months before Bush took office.

The Microsoft suit wasn't really something Clinton wanted to do...he was pressured into it by corporations like Netscape, et al.

Perhaps.