NationStates Jolt Archive

This resolution is flawed. We debated this issue in policy debate. The only solution is de-oxidizing the ballast tanks. All life in them are killed, and rust is stopped. WE stop invasive species, clean out our ballast tanks, and we save money. Our ship's lives will be extended.

Here's a better reason to vote no:

A Resolution on Ballast Water? Jesus H. Christ, you F@#$*$ dorks!

I can think of good reasons to vote for it, one of them being purely because you two nations want me to vote against it, but I'm vindictive like that at times.

Do you honestly think nations are going to listen to your little complaints? :roll:

Here's a better reason to vote no:

A Resolution on Ballast Water? Jesus H. Christ, you F@#$*$ dorks!

Many of us are still waiting for you to post a reason. Any reason.

But since you're a self described expert on ballast water, could you in your own words tell us what it is? Why do ships use it? What would happen if they don't?

More importantly, about how many hours at deep sea does it take to cycle the ballast tanks on most ships?

HINT: I said hours, not days.

10kMichael

ff

this resolution fails to solve. My idea does and is cheaper. Vote no.

this resolution fails to solve. My idea does and is cheaper. Vote no.


Many ships already cycle their ballast water, but they do so *within* harbors and ports. Hence the problem.

You and others keep saying that cycling in deep waters is more expensive than: (A) not cycling, or (B) de-oxygenation.

The cost of cycling sea chests while in the deep ocean is about a day's worth of travel. That is an upper bound estimate.

If a day's worth of travel is that expensive, then your cargo probably shouldn't be traveling via surface / sea. That is just a cold hard opinion, but it is a reasonable one as well.

The cost of de-oxygenation may pay for itself in the long run, via improved hull conditions. But guess what? The arguement that protecting ballast water is propoganda for rich nations, would have some minor merit then. There is an inital capital expenditure in installing the systems. However, the pumps used to cycle ballast water are already in place in all ships that use ballast water. There really is no cost other than lost travel time.

Over time, your proposed de-oxygenation idea is worth pursuing, but the problem is species invasions aren't going to wait for your idea. The cycling will significantly reduce the spread of invasive species, and really is an appropriate short term measure.

If you look at the resolution, I believe we included a provision to encourage nations to continue to find ways to improve upon it.

This is not a trick by rich nations to hurt poor nations. Nor is this a trick to put a weak environmental practice into place at the cost of better ones. As our understanding of human impacts of the environment increases, you have my word that my nation will continue to advocate sound long-term management practices that accomodate sustainable development.

Essentially, I'm asking you specifically to change your vote and support the environment. Look closely at your nation's intelligence profile of mine. You'll see that my nation has a rich tradition of environmental protection as well as protecting its citizens civil and political freedoms. I honestly appreciate your comments, and a number of us would like to work with you in the future as well.

:)

Hrm. If only NationStates allowed counterplans, then the world would indeed be a better place. But you'd do well to keep those kritik-lovers out. Let someone loose with a Foucault 1NC frontline and the whole place is liable to go up in flames.

Err. I mean . . no, I'm definately not a collegiate debate nerd. No way, no how.

Sincerely yours,
Daniel M. Hillaker
Minister of Foreign Affairs

I and any other Policy debator are well aware of this. My aff case was on invasive species. The only solution that was viable without economic harm and still solving was de-oxidizing water. It DOES save money and it is cheap to implement. My nation will be very willing to pay for it on our fleets. I urge that we vote no. We need to introduce another bill

This resolution is flawed. We debated this issue in policy debate. The only solution is de-oxidizing the ballast tanks. All life in them are killed, and rust is stopped. WE stop invasive species, clean out our ballast tanks, and we save money. Our ship's lives will be extended.

I quit policy debate after they announced this year's topic. Saving the oceans wtf!? What state are you from?

I don't blame you. Next year's topic is good, the UN

to expensive

I and any other Policy debator are well aware of this. My aff case was on invasive species. The only solution that was viable without economic harm and still solving was de-oxidizing water. It DOES save money and it is cheap to implement. My nation will be very willing to pay for it on our fleets. I urge that we vote no. We need to introduce another bill

This is excellent! I encourage you to post your DRAFT proposal here so we can provide helpful comments. I assure you, I will do my best to help your proposal as well.

I still will vote in favour of this proposal though. It will do no lasting harm.

[OOC: That is great that you are a Policy Debator and can assure us all that cycling is bad. In real life I happen to be a registered environmental engineer working for the State of California. You'll have to excuse me if I happen to have some professional experience that contradicts whatever your Debator research has provided you. Furthermore, if you have such excellent notes against cycling, why not actually *gasp* use them. It really is difficult when you say it works, and I say it doesn't for this to become anything more than a he said / she said contest. Those ain't fun at all.]

I haven't obtained enough endorsements to make a resolution.

The idea is a single mandate, put the de-oxidization machines in the tanks. All of the ballast neg evidence was for other solutions like this resolution. There was NO evidence against this. The Neg teams ran the handbook and got the OH **** look in their eyes as they were reading it.

bump and vote no

Here's a better reason to vote no:

A Resolution on Ballast Water? Jesus H. Christ, you F@#$*$ dorks!

You know, even with-out looking at their post counter, you can tell on pure intuition that its their first...

"Jesus H. Christ", did we all "F@#$*$" sound like this once upon a time? :wink:

- The Rep of Komokom.

I don't blame you. Next year's topic is good, the UN

Policy isn't much of a challenge in my district anyways... let's say 100% of the teams in our district qualified to states and 67% qualified to nationals.

My district in the Northwest IN. What Rostrum calls one of the toughest in the nation. I at Valpo, IN have to face Munster, Penn, Laporte,a nd PLymouth. Then at state we face Chesterton

Urge your friends and people in your region to vote no, tell them of de-oxidization

Urge your friends and people in your region to vote no, tell them of de-oxidization

Why? You've yet to debate why cycling is bad. To date you've said, "I'm a debator and de-oxidication is better." While I support any good environmental proposal and help authors draft sound proposals, I need a hell of a lot more than, "I'm a debater, vote what I say" to sway my nations vote.

[OOC: When I judged high school debate back in the late 80s, the facts many of the kids used were pulled from newspaper editorials -- even though that was a big no-no then. That said, I personally think credible editorials are fine, because there is an abundance of them a google hit away for two sides of any arguement. :)

That said, I'm a bit suspect about things when I don't see people talking about them at professional conferences. This doesn't mean I'm not keeping an open mind, but I really would love it if you would share your debate notes so we all can make our own judgements. Remember, debating entails much more than just saying you know something. It also is about convincing people to your point of view by demostrating knowledge in the field.]

10kMichael

I threw out my evidence after a horrible district match. I want you to get a hold of West Coast Debate Handbookds 2003-2004. They have all the evidence

Urge your friends and people in your region to vote no, tell them of de-oxidization

How many times are you going to repeat yourself?

The Armed Republic of Gassarat moves to cite "Homor Simpson1987" for spamming the UN board.

Your arguments would not stand up in any intelligent debate, simply because the contain no intelligent facts. I honestly don't know why Mikitivity is bothering to reply to your flaccid statements. Now if you will run along and FIND those facts, we would be more than happy to listen to your concerns. It isn't that hard for you to punch a few buttons on your keyboard and find some evidence on the web. You've done more work typing the same redundant thing over and over again than you would to actually find some support for your statements.

The fact that you haven't been able to obtain the support of a paltry two UN nations to endorse you does not speak very highly of your respectability.

(Mik- am I the only one thinking of the adage "Repetition is a sign of stupidity"?)

How will this affect our nations, it doesnt sound like a major issue that will dramatically effect any of us. So why vote? and if vote then what will this do besides save the enviroment in the Game?

How many times are you going to repeat yourself?

Your arguments would not stand up in any intelligent debate, simply because the contain no intelligent facts. I honestly don't know why Mikitivity is bothering to reply to your flaccid statements. Now if you will run along and FIND those facts, we would be more than happy to listen to your concerns.

You're completely right.

When directly asked to defend his opinion, the representative from Homer now claims that he threw out {his} evidence after a horrible district match.

There is a reason for this: he never had any information to share and doesn't care enough to do a 10-minture search.

10kMichael

I threw out my evidence after a horrible district match. I want you to get a hold of West Coast Debate Handbooks 2003-2004. They have all the evidence

We use Vic Briefs.

It is very simple, the UN should not have the authority to mandate that all nations participate. We should worry more on about providing every person with water in our own borders, provide food for the poor, providing shelter for the homeless. We are going over our heads! This resolution, although a great idea, fails to build upon a foundation. Lets first think of that, before we make resolutions upon resolutions!
All our nations have bigger things to worry about, then the UN pounding us with more projects for us to worry about.
:wink:

The UN can do whatever it wants*.

And the UN has the ultimate authority over it’s members.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World

*As long it agrees with the mechanics

This resolution and others like it are why the Holy Empire of Grand Hobgoblonia has officially made the decree that its entry into the United Nations shall be forever pending, if ever.

Why should Grand Hobgoblonia pay heed to petty rules of other nations, especially when voluntary? No! I think not.

This resolution and others like it are why the Holy Empire of Grand Hobgoblonia has officially made the decree that its entry into the United Nations shall be forever pending, if ever.

Why should Grand Hobgoblonia pay heed to petty rules of other nations, especially when voluntary? No! I think not.

Fair enough, but consider an earlier point I brought up: invasive species are like STDs (Sexually Transmitted Dieases). STDs are passed along from host to host when practicing unsafe sex. Once somebody gets an STD, many people avoid having sex with them.

While you might find the practice of exchanging or treating your "ballast tanks" hard, I can say with absolute certainity that in a few years, no ships that came from your "port" will be allowed in the majority of the world's "ports".

The NationStates UN has legal standing here, because the spread of invasive species impacts us all. Even if your ports are safe today, poor ballast water management on your part makes your nation a high risk to the rest of us. (Also, like STDs, invasive species destroy ecosystems, leaving them nasty to just look at too ... as in ewwww, dead shellfish everywhere!)

10kMichael

Upon further examination of the issue, Grand Hobgoblonia has reversed its position on the issue, and then reversed it again.

Documented research provided by ministers of Mikitivity (in other threads) proved very convincing, until Hobgoblonia's Environmental Minister suggested sterilizing the commercial harbors, but this did not satisfy the Security Minister, who said that would not stop rats and other onboard stowaways from entering the nation. But then, everyone realized, neither would changing ballast tanks.

Sovreign control of each individual nation is best.
If one nation does not want foreign ecosystem contamination, then it can take steps to prevent this, eg; not trading with nations who contaminate other systems, as has already been suggested; or sterilizing commercial harbors, as such research is currently going into Grand Hobgoblonia's Coastal Ministry, which is not very big.

Some of the research against the idea of sterilizing commercial harbors suggests that this wouldn't really prevent contamination either, but then, any ship passing through the coastal region could be contaminating, then, which means without mandatory membership in the UN by force of arms, there will be nations out there who do not comply to standards such as this put out by the UN, therefore other measures must be taken, and joining the UN has no benefit in this example.

This is the official position of the Holy Empire of Grand Hobgoblonia, as provided by the Office of Foreign Relations.

If one nation does not want foreign ecosystem contamination, then it can take steps to prevent this, eg; not trading with nations who contaminate other systems, as has already been suggested;

The trouble with that is that if I want to be protected against invasive species but that my neighbour just down the coast doesn't care, then I've no way of protecting myself: once the species has invaded his coastline there's nothing to prevent it spreading to mine.

As for sterilising harbours, we're unsure how this could be done in a way that a) didn't horribly pollute the surrounding waters and b) didn't need to be expensively repeated every five minutes as species recolonised the region.

As far as I can see, the main concern is that this'll lose shipping time. This doesn't really regard the fact that intercontinental shipping is a pretty damn slow business anyway; it's not anything like the same sort of worry as one would have about imposing this kind of restriction on plane flights.

Sovreign control of each individual nation is best.

With an official UN position like that, may I inquire why Grand Hobgoblonia is a UN member? While sovereignty is important, the Rights and Duties of UN Member States resolution clearly suggests that one of the principal obligations of joining the UN includes following international standards.

Believe me, plenty of nations have suggested that ballast water cycling is not 100% effective. They are right, as I myself have pointed out.

But to continue with an example most of us are more familiar with, condoms are not 100% effective birth control / STD protection devices. They aren't and will never be. And yet, the vast majority of medical doctors advocate their use in order to prevent the spread of STDs (a few religious doctors are opposed to them because they do control birth rates).

Similarly, the vast majority of biologists and environmental engineers (you're talking to one now), advocate ballast water exchanges as a minium.

10KMichael

While sovereignty is important, the Rights and Duties of UN Member States resolution clearly suggests that one of the principal obligations of joining the UN includes following international standards.


Suggesting it does not make it so. If that was the intent of the resolution... it should have clearly stated so.

We use Vic Briefs.[/quote]

Well, I also use Paradigm. Just got back from Speech district. Got 5th. I am going to qualify in Congress this April

Sovreign control of each individual nation is best.

With an official UN position like that, may I inquire why Grand Hobgoblonia is a UN member? While sovereignty is important, the Rights and Duties of UN Member States resolution clearly suggests that one of the principal obligations of joining the UN includes following international standards.

This is the official position of the Holy Empire of Grand Hobgoblonia, as provided by the Office of Foreign Relations.
This is not the "official UN position" of Grand Hobgoblonia, it is the official position, as expressed earlier, the Holy Empire of Grand Hobgoblonia is not a member of the UN, and this type of resolution is why.

The existence of the resolution has caused internal examination of the issue, for certain, but the Monarch is certainly glad he did not compromise his ability to make that decision and weigh the costs and benefits for Grand Hobgoblonia without some silly organization forcing the agenda of democratic oppression from other human states.

Assertively,
Prime Minister Baragh IV,
Loyal Servant to the One True Monarch
of the Holy Empire of Grand Hobgoblonia

the Holy Empire of Grand Hobgoblonia is not a member of the UN, and this type of resolution is why.


I stand corrected.

Let me be the first to say that I am glad that even as a nation that is not a UN member that you still recognize the influence of this body and join us in discussions.

Just out of continued curiousity, which of the NationStates UN resolutions that have passed would your nation have voted in favour of? The list of the UN resolutions is available to all.

10kMichael

As for sterilising harbours, we're unsure how this could be done in a way that a) didn't horribly pollute the surrounding waters and b) didn't need to be expensively repeated every five minutes as species recolonised the region.

No problem, just dump radium into the pond until nothing grows there anymore.

The radium is really heavy, so it will sink to the bottom and stay there. The water will heat up with radiation, and kill anything else which comes in afterwards. Best of all, the water would act as a form of shielding - so very little radiation would escape the surface of the ocean, so people on the ground would receive relatively little genetic damage - probably only te equivalent of getting a chest Xray every couple of days - if that.

I'm not sure how that really protects your local ecosystem, but it would work I suppose.

Don't make me come over there.

While sovereignty is important, the Rights and Duties of UN Member States resolution clearly suggests that one of the principal obligations of joining the UN includes following international standards.


Suggesting it does not make it so. If that was the intent of the resolution... it should have clearly stated so.

*laughing*
The irony here is I can now point out to you, "Failure on your part to not read something, does not mean that it does not exist."

I'll do your research for you this one time, but in the future do your own damn homework.

The following is from the Rights and Duties of UN States resolution adopted Feb. 24, 2004:


Section I: The Principle of National Sovereignty
Article 2 § Every UN Member State has the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all persons and things therein, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.


I'll translate the above statement into language even an elementry school student can understand:

Sovereignty exists, except where the NationStates UN has passed a resolution overriding that sovereignty.

Before you get too upset, you always have the option to leave the UN. Nobody forced you to join, and the rules of the UN were made clear to all nations. Crying about them is not going to help now.

::sigh::
*turning to the experienced UN representatives*
What was it about sheep over running the UN? I think the sheep have been replaced by puppies these days?

10kMichael

A good lawyer will come up with 50 different intrepetations of that clause. They would spend 10 years just determining what immunities are, plus, another decade arguing about whether a UN resolution is a law. Read your dictionary... the two have different meanings.

** Scratches his head momentarily and begins flipping through his dictionary **

Rep. of Laio, I would suggest that most lawyers would realize that as soon as a resolution is passed, it is enacted upon all UN Nations, without exception. And if the resolution is violated by a nation, it receives warnings... if it gets enough warnings, it is punished.

I also think that a UN Resolution would be considered a rule of conduct or procedure established by authority.

The Resolutions are certainly a body of rules and principles that govern the affairs of UN Member-States, and are enforced by a political authority.

A UN Resolution would probably be considered to be rules dealing with specifics areas of a legal system.

And they are certainly pieces of enacted legislation.

Was there another definition your were considering?

Concerning how the statement is defined, since the UN Resolutions are the only international law, and certain areas of jurisdiction are "immune" to national leaders' personal objections, I'd say it's pretty straight-forward.

A good lawyer will come up with 50 different intrepetations of that clause. They would spend 10 years just determining what immunities are, plus, another decade arguing about whether a UN resolution is a law. Read your dictionary... the two have different meanings.

Hey kid, why don't you read the rules to NationStates. They are amazingly clear.

Also, a good justice would also turn to the debate on the resolution, if she or he felt that there was any question as to the meaning before making a ruling in an appellate court

But please, continue to make a fool our of yourself and tell us what you think Article II could mean. I mean, you just told us there are 50 interpetations. Surely you can give us at least one. And if you are a really good "lawyer" or diplomat, you probably can fire off 5 of them right now.

Personally you've just shot any credibility you might have had in my mind at being somewhat intelligent, 'cause the words used in the resolution aren't really above an 8th grade reading level. You're BSing and you and I both know it. I'd even bet that you didn't know what the hell the Rights and Duties resolution was til I posted it here.


10kMichael
p.s. yeah, I know I'm not being very diplomatic with the kid, but frankly if we treat these newbies with kid gloves, they ain't gonna ever learn ... and in this case, the guy comes from a Father Knows Best State, so there is a fitting irony here. ;)

Like a child, you are jumping to conclusions... with any any information. You have no idea of my age, I suspect that I have underwear older than you, and apparantly know nothing about the legal system.

Lawyers live to find loop-holesand exceptions... that is what they get paid to do. Why do you think that the trial of a mass-murderer is taking years to do its thing.

I suggest that before you spout off again... know what you are ranting about in the future. Oh, I hear your nanny calling... time to take your nappy.

Let me be the first to say that I am glad that even as a nation that is not a UN member that you still recognize the influence of this body and join us in discussions.
And my recognition of the influence of the UN despite my occasional objections to that influence is noted by my presence here indeed.

Just out of continued curiousity, which of the NationStates UN resolutions that have passed would your nation have voted in favour of? The list of the UN resolutions is available to all.

Well, having now compiled a list for future reference upon this prompting:

Grand Hobgoblonia would have supported: (reasons why)
Scientific Freedom (IT industry), Expedition of Resolution Votes, Education For All, UN taxation ban, Proposal limits, Search Function, More Knowledge of Own Country, Ban Single-Hulled Tankers (fishing industry), MANDATORY RECYCLING (macro economy), 'RBH' Replacement (negates a res against), Outlaw Pedophilia, Metric System, Wolfish Convention on POW, Oceanic Waste Dumping (fishing industry), Legalise Euthanasia, UCPL, Save the forests of the World

would have voted against but can live with:
End slavery (interests), Keep The World Disease-Free! (weak), CHILD LABOR (interests), Hydrogen Powered Vehicles (weak), Religious Tolerance, (interests/weak enough), Replanting Trees (weak), Alternative Fuels (industry expenses), Rights and Duties of UN States (restrictive),

and would have strongly opposed: (interests meaning restriction thereof)
Secretary General (interests), Resolution 245A Proper Grammar (frivolous), Citizen Rule Required (interests), Stop privacy intrusion (interests), Elimination of Bio Weapons (too weak), Required Basic Healthcare (too expensive), Fair trial (interests), The Universal Bill of Rights (hooey), Due Process (hooey), Free education (16 is old enough), Common Sense Act II (interests), The Rights of Labor Unions (economy), Fair Treatment of Mentally-Ill (too expensive), Definition of 'Fair Trial'(interests),

And resolutions not mentioned before the one being debated in this thread were not significant enough to have merited a response from the Holy Empire of Grand Hobgoblonia.

Really, this particular issue has gone back and forth among the ministers here.

Assertively,
Prime Minister Baragh IV,
Loyal Servant to the One True Monarch
of the Holy Empire of Grand Hobgoblonia

Like a child, you are jumping to conclusions... with any any information. You have no idea of my age, I suspect that I have underwear older than you, and apparantly know nothing about the legal system.

Lawyers live to find loop-holesand exceptions... that is what they get paid to do. Why do you think that the trial of a mass-murderer is taking years to do its thing.

I suggest that before you spout off again... know what you are ranting about in the future. Oh, I hear your nanny calling... time to take your nappy.

Christ on a Stick! WTF does a mass-murderer have to do with ballast water or the UN? You're grasping at anything now to prove ... what was your point again ... oh yeah that there are 50 ways to interpet the Rights and Duties resolution.

I'm gonna call your bluff, you claimed there were 50 different ways to interpet the Article II of the Rights and Duties resolution and you still have failed to provide even a single interpetation.

Now please either stop wasting this forum's time or start creating some creative ways to interpet Article II of the resolution in question. Let the rest of the world see how "great" and "profound" your understanding of international law is.

10kMichael

Well, having now compiled a list for future reference upon this prompting:

Grand Hobgoblonia would have supported: (reasons why)
Scientific Freedom (IT industry), Expedition of Resolution Votes, Education For All, UN taxation ban, Proposal limits, Search Function, More Knowledge of Own Country, Ban Single-Hulled Tankers (fishing industry), MANDATORY RECYCLING (macro economy), 'RBH' Replacement (negates a res against), Outlaw Pedophilia, Metric System, Wolfish Convention on POW, Oceanic Waste Dumping (fishing industry), Legalise Euthanasia, UCPL, Save the forests of the World

would have voted against but can live with:
End slavery (interests), Keep The World Disease-Free! (weak), CHILD LABOR (interests), Hydrogen Powered Vehicles (weak), Religious Tolerance, (interests/weak enough), Replanting Trees (weak), Alternative Fuels (industry expenses), Rights and Duties of UN States (restrictive),

and would have strongly opposed: (interests meaning restriction thereof)
Secretary General (interests), Resolution 245A Proper Grammar (frivolous), Citizen Rule Required (interests), Stop privacy intrusion (interests), Elimination of Bio Weapons (too weak), Required Basic Healthcare (too expensive), Fair trial (interests), The Universal Bill of Rights (hooey), Due Process (hooey), Free education (16 is old enough), Common Sense Act II (interests), The Rights of Labor Unions (economy), Fair Treatment of Mentally-Ill (too expensive), Definition of 'Fair Trial'(interests),


While my nation has differences of opinion than you on many of these resolutions, there are yet others our nations agree upon.

But I must say, this is helpful. It sounds to me, and please correct me if I'm wrong, as if your nation is very supportive of acts that basically increase economic activity, and weary of resolutions that do the opposite. Of course this is an oversimplification and maybe a topic deserving of another thread ... as this has nothing to do with ballast water at all.

Again, I'm not trying to put words in your mouth so to speak, but it sounds as if future proposals could keep that in mind, they may be more attractive to your nation (and perhaps other non-members as well).

If any nation is interested, I will ask my government to go through and do a similar thing by stating what our vote was or would have been on all of the past resolutions. Do other nations find this at all useful? Mine certainly will.

Despite what some of the silly nations that claim there are 50 ways to easily interpet a single sentence, my nation would much rather use the UN to achive building a sustainable world economy and lasting peace (meaning my nation favours resolutions that are forward looking over those that focus on short-term savings at the expensive of our children). But now knowing that other nations really do focus only on the short term dollar amounts, I've asked my government to begin making fiscal impact statements of UN resolutions.

10kMichael

Yes, well, concerning the topic of the Resolution in Question, most Grand Hobgoblonian positions are meant to support the growth of Grand Hobgoblonia's economy and pull away from anything that would hamper that; also, the factor of letting each nation define it's own social rules based on its own culture is very important to Grand Hobgoblonia, but that is not so relevant in this debate.

A sustainable economy is a fine thing, but Grand Hobgoblonian opposition to this resolution in particular wasn't quite so related to hampering of economy as to ineffectiveness of legislation. Hampering of economic growth was indeed a factor, but a small one. More important is the avoiding of frivolous rules that our Foreign Ministers will have to spend their time paying attention to, such as rules that, in our view, do not make significant impact.

Our fishing industry lobby has looked at the issue, but they have found that the fish population appears to be as good as ever, and any invasive species if present have gone unnoticed. If this should change, perhaps it would influence our position, but then, the other day we just told our auto industry it had better improve the quality and pricing of its cars or it will have to face being overwhelmed by foreign markets, for we, the government, will not step in to artificially back a weak industry.

Perhaps this hobgoblin thinking is too much for humans.

Assertively,
Prime Minister Baragh IV,
Loyal Servant to the One True Monarch
of the Holy Empire of Grand Hobgoblonia

Our fishing industry lobby has looked at the issue, but they have found that the fish population appears to be as good as ever, and any invasive species if present have gone unnoticed. If this should change, perhaps it would influence our position, but then, the other day we just told our auto industry it had better improve the quality and pricing of its cars or it will have to face being overwhelmed by foreign markets, for we, the government, will not step in to artificially back a weak industry.

Perhaps this hobgoblin thinking is too much for humans.


No, even to a simple human as me, I do see logic in your opinion. In fact, your position (though I disagree with it) is the one that I can honestly say is very sincere and demostrates critical thinking on the part of hobgoblins. If others would have stated their opposition as succinctly as you would, I know that I've have spent more of my time elsewhere (perhaps adding input to other nation's draft proposals).

10kMichael

You have no idea of my age, I suspect that I have underwear older than you, and apparantly know nothing about the legal system.


The best part about this sentence is that it can be interpreted so that the "and apparently know nothing of the legal system." is attached to the previous fragment which had a valid subject - which in this case would be "I".

If your point was that you didn't know anything about the legal system - you just made it, because your sentence structure is rather easily broken down into stating exactly that. Word of advice: never ever leave the subject of anything unclear. Don't mix fragments with the subject "you" and fragments with the subject "I" in the same sentence.

It makes "you" look like an idiot.

Don't make me come over there.

Don't make me come over there.

The front door is open, just knock first... got to hide the stash :D.

"You have no idea of my age and apparantly know nothing about the legal system."

I suggest that you talk to an English teacher, the comment between commas is intentionally set apart... because it qualify's the sentence.

Mikitivity. anyone that has ever done business with a lawyer knows that their profession is built on questioning laws, contracts, etc. Challenging a "term" is their bread-n-butter. Heck, even a 3rd-rate lawyer could tie a court up for years in defining what invasive means.

I suggest that if you ever need a lawyer... let someone else do the hiring for you. If I knew how to do it myself... I would have no need for lawyers. I let the experts do their thing and just pay the bills.

Admit it, you have your chonies in a wad because your pet proposal was questioned.

Don't make me come over there.

The front door is open, just knock first... got to hide the stash :D.

"You have no idea of my age and apparantly know nothing about the legal system."

I suggest that you talk to an English teacher, the comment between commas is intentionally set apart... because it qualify's the sentence.

Mikitivity. anyone that has ever done business with a lawyer knows that their profession is built on questioning laws, contracts, etc. Challenging a "term" is their bread-n-butter. Heck, even a 3rd-rate lawyer could tie a court up for years in defining what invasive means.

I suggest that if you ever need a lawyer... let someone else do the hiring for you. If I knew how to do it myself... I would have no need for lawyers. I let the experts do their thing and just pay the bills.

Admit it, you have your chonies in a wad because your pet proposal was questioned.

No, I've gotten telegrams of support from nations that even have said they'd vote no on the resolution they actually felt my points were sound, in contrast to poor arguements like yours. (Don't ask me to post private telegrams here though, because if those nations wanted to the entire UN forum to know they are just roleplaying, they would have posted a OOC comment. In short, what is sent to me privately remains there. Besides, I've been forthcoming with all sorts of information since I joined this forum, I think I have established a track record of honest sincere attempts to build a better NationStates.)

The point that you seem to be missing is this is not a place for lawyers (which BTW I don't even think you understand law), but a place for international diplomats.

Your point that a single sentence in the Rights and Duties resolution (which since you joined the UN after it was passed, I highly doubt you knew of before the crap started flying out of your mouth) could be interpeted 50 different ways. Your quote, not mine.

Anyway, I've yet to see you offer one interpetation of that resolution.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. You don't have a clue about anything.

Furthermore, should a resolution come up for "interpetation", it would be before a panel of justices, which again are usually experienced individuals who frequently look at the floor debates and current interpetations of similar laws. Think of the US Court of Appeals.

The bottom line is you were full of BS and are pissed that a few of us have called you on it. The sad thing ... your claim might have had some credibility if you had spent 10 minutes making up one of these "interpetations" of something you claim you already knew about.

It hardly matters that I think you are a moron. What matters is other nations do as well. When the day comes that you try to make a treaty or argue for or against another resolution, people will remember, "Hey wasn't that representative from Liao the guy that claims there are like 50 different ways to interpet the rule that UN can pass laws that impact your country? If so, that guy was a moron."

The ballast water proposal was gonna pass no matter what was said here. Why? Look at the number of times the threads were read. Far less than the 16,000 votes cast.

My only goal was to embarass a kid like you enough that you'd think twice before saying something stupid. I figured anybody playing a Fascist government might react to fear more than they would to reason, so I decided to make an example of you. (Father Knows Best states, which your government was ranked as yesterday, are the NationStates equivalent of places like 1930s Germany ... you know, governments will few political freedoms, where civil rights are low, and where you fear your government.)

10kMichael

No, the moron is someone that does not know the difference between reality and a game... get a life. Your attempts to be so high and mighty are always good for a laugh. I love it when petulant youth pretends to be something that they are not... an adult.

Does this pointless exercise about proposals have any value... other than that of entertainment. It seems to with you... it is such a sad, little life you lead.

No, the moron is someone that does not know the difference between reality and a game... get a life. Your attempts to be so high and mighty are always good for a laugh. I love it when petulant youth pretends to be something that they are not... an adult.

Does this pointless exercise about proposals have any value... other than that of entertainment. It seems to with you... it is such a sad, little life you lead.


technically you are correct for this guy is a moron who keeps thinking he is superior, but you are one too as you persist to argue, usually if people are to stay seen as "intelligence" which many people are seen to be lack of, all they would usually do is come to a quick conclusion and end the fight.


for the topic in general, yous are all morons for pollution, my nation which infact derived from another planet a couple of galaxies away (the name of my country is the name of the planet) is extremely self sufficient. Maybe yous should take after the Futurama episode where Mom introduced the new assistant droid feeds on pollution and excretes oxygen with a scent of peppermint ey! or is technology too stinjy for that type of high-tech machinery and industrial development?

if alot of yous didnt act like such pansies who cannot accept a loss, alot of problems wouldnt exist let alone occur.


Tytrox Throx
2000th Generation Royal Emperor
Commander General Zortrothian Army
Empire of Zortroth