NationStates Jolt Archive

After a (rather short) drafting debate, the following repeal has been submitted. Please support it, and tell your friendly delegates about it. I will give you a cookie if it reaches quorum.

---

Repeal “Save the forests of the World”

The General Assembly of the United Nations,

COMMENDING the assumed intentions of Resolution #48, “Save the forests of the World”;

DEEPLY COMMITTED to guaranteeing the sustainability of the world ecosystem, namely by the preservation of forests; yet

REGRETTING the confusing, discursive and unconstructive nature of said Resolution;

NOTING that it does not mandate or recommend any course of action to further the cause of sustainability, rendering it ineffective;

ACKNOWLEDGING the clear overlap between the assumed intentions of its author and the mandate of Resolution #23, “Replanting Trees”; and

DECLARING that ambiguous and ineffective legislation threatens the credibility of the UN, especially when in duplication of previous legislation;

REPEALS Resolution #48.

---

Drafting thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=457921)
Save the forests of the World (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=47)
Replanting trees (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=22)
Repeal proposal (http://nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=forests)

Note: Yelda and Gruenberg's comments were included in the poll. Copyright is recognised where appropriate. I hope it is not too sarcastic...

you've certainly got my vote and i could get you a few others.

If a clear, comprehensive, water-tight replacement can be made then you have our full support.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

If a clear, comprehensive, water-tight replacement can be made then you have our full support.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

I am sorry, but I don't understand what you mean. Which of the non-existent effects of Res #48 do you want to replace? If you mean writing a resolution about cutting trees, I am afraid it would probably be deemed illegal due to duplication of Replanting Trees (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=22) and Illegal Logging. (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=65)

You got my sopport

Excellent poll.

*applauds*

You have my support; feel free to contact me any time if you need help campaigning this beauty.

Hehe. Ramparts.:D

Approved. Good luck!

If we were to repeal resolution #48, we would face the problem that the lil' bunnies wouldn't be as secure. Resolution #23 makes up for the lost trees, but it does not address the whole "Countless spieces of plant and animal will be destroyed if deforestation continues at the rate that it is currently" part of resolution #48's arguement. And although resolution #66 would decrease the amount of illegal logging, #66 does not state what the WWP specifies as "legal logging", and so the amount of logging could potentially either stay the same, or people could just begin to legally cut down rainforests more often. I do agree that we should repeal #48; however, I also believe that you should give us a proper replacement for the protection of the plants and animals present in these forested areas, as is done with resolution #48.

Good luck with your endeavors.

Incidentally...I don't see a link. http://nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=forests

You have our support for this repeal.

Any attempt to remove the deadwood from our bloated body of international law is a good one, and should be commended.

If a clear, comprehensive, water-tight replacement can be made then you have our full support.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

There is absolutely no content to this resolution, so why is a replacement needed to get the repeal? You couldn't even justify the existance of a replacement as anything that works as a replacement would be illegal (due to the fact that you're trying to replace an essay). You're asking for a watertight replacement for..... quite literally nothing.

I do agree that we should repeal #48; however, I also believe that you should give us a proper replacement for the protection of the plants and animals present in these forested areas, as is done with resolution #48.Resolution #48 does absolutely nothing. It isn't a law, it's rhetoric. If it was submitted today, it would be deleted for format violations.

There's nothing to replace, as it does nothing.

Resolution #48 does absolutely nothing. It isn't a law, it's rhetoric. If it was submitted today, it would be deleted for format violations.

There's nothing to replace, as it does nothing.

*shocked at hearing an echo

:p

Yar, yar, yar :p

Just figured I'd make it all official-like, heh.

I am sorry, but I don't understand what you mean. Which of the non-existent effects of Res #48 do you want to replace? If you mean writing a resolution about cutting trees, I am afraid it would probably be deemed illegal due to duplication of Replanting Trees (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=22) and Illegal Logging. (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=65)

There is absolutely no content to this resolution, so why is a replacement needed to get the repeal? You couldn't even justify the existance of a replacement as anything that works as a replacement would be illegal (due to the fact that you're trying to replace an essay). You're asking for a watertight replacement for..... quite literally nothing.

I meant that if we are going to repeal it, we should come up with a decent replacement.

Please people, less of the aggro, honestly:(

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassadors for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

I meant that if we are going to repeal it, we should come up with a decent replacement.

Please people, less of the aggro, honestly

But, again, a replacement for what? As has been pointed out already, this resolution doesn't do anything. You can go on about a replacement, but until we know what it is you want the replacement to feature, we can't really help. What do you want to see in the new substantive proposal?

Trees are protected (many times over), endangered animals are protected...

I mean... it's like having my appendix removed and telling the doctor that I want something put in that serves the same purpose. Anything that this Resolution might have intended to do is already covered. And since it doesn't actually do anything, there's nothing to replace.

Indeed, the only possible replacement would be another rambling Proposal that does nothing; which would be deleted.

I'll ask my regional delegate to support it.

The-Republic']Excellent poll.

*applauds*

You have my support; feel free to contact me any time if you need help campaigning this beauty.

Hehe. Ramparts.:D

Thanks. As I stated before, credit is due to Yelda for that point.

Incidentally...I don't see a link.

There are links in the end of the first post.

I meant that if we are going to repeal it, we should come up with a decent replacement.

Please people, less of the aggro, honestly

Honestly, I don't think anyone was sarcastic or agressive when replying to you. Saying that this Resolution does nothing is not a figure of speech, it is a consensual fact. As such, there is no way a "replacement" will ever be legal. Here you have two options:
a) Accept that this resolution was completely irrelevant, so no resubmit is needed, and turn to other matters.
b) Find something that hasn't been regulated so far, in the numerous environmental laws already passed by this body. But that would not be a replacement, it would surely be about a different issue altogether.

Because...
Anything that this Resolution might have intended to do is already covered.

If we were to repeal resolution #48, we would face the problem that the lil' bunnies wouldn't be as secure. Resolution #23 makes up for the lost trees, but it does not address the whole "Countless spieces of plant and animal will be destroyed if deforestation continues at the rate that it is currently" part of resolution #48's arguement. And although resolution #66 would decrease the amount of illegal logging, #66 does not state what the WWP specifies as "legal logging", and so the amount of logging could potentially either stay the same, or people could just begin to legally cut down rainforests more often. I do agree that we should repeal #48; however, I also believe that you should give us a proper replacement for the protection of the plants and animals present in these forested areas, as is done with resolution #48.

Good luck with your endeavors.

Thank you for your post. I fear you might have misunderstood the debate. Res #48 also does not address the "Countless spieces of plant and animal will be destroyed if deforestation continues at the rate that it is currently."

Res #48 is an essay about:
- All the nasty things that can happen if we cut forests;
- All the wonderful things that would happen if we stopped cutting forests.
Unfortunately, the author forgot the part where he actually tells UN members what to do. As such, this text is not legislation at all; it is, at best, a poorly written introduction to legislation.

That is why I write "assumed intentions" in the repeal - there is no definite way of finding out what the author wants us to do. If you do find some area of environmental protection that is not covered by the current resolutions, you are free to submit legislation on that; however, it should be clear that the drafting of such a proposal is immaterial for the current repeal.

Fonzoland: by 'link', I meant a link to the actual proposal.

Best. Poll. Evah.

Edit: Proposal itself has moved a little. It's on page 2 (http://www.nationstates.net/20947/page=UN_proposal/start=10) now. Seems that between the update and my own efforts about 7 pages to vanished...

If a clear, comprehensive, water-tight replacement can be made then you have our full support.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

The people of Cluichstan fail to understand why every worthless resolution requires a replacement for delegates to favour repeal.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN
Regional Delegate from Scybala

Approvals: 37 (Fonzoland, Child Care Workers, Tyndarus, Richard2008, Cluichstan, Yeldan UN Mission, Flibbleites, WZ Forums, NewTexas, Leg-ends, Great Britain---, Pulcifer, OsirisRa, Pochinco, Kirisubo, Ge-be-on-e-quet, Dorksonia, Pyrostan, EStinkie5, The Kazoo Peoples, Butchery and Slaughter, Troubadouria, Multiland, Delta48, Tresullus, Forgottenlands UN, Dmytri, Ryonian Cities, Athens and Midlands, Heaven Gate, Ukaraine, Reformentia, Asieloth, Soviet Sclst Republics, East Sibir, Cleverbronx, Jey)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 91 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Mon Dec 12 2005

I am bumping this, because it doesn't seem to be progressing well enough for my taste. ;) I have done some limited TG campaigning, but it has been a busy weekend. If you know some delegates, or are member of a trans-regional forum, please help me raise awareness!

I voted against it on this poll. I read it again and came to my senses. It does nothing.

At least the would industry will think I'm doing something to help them.

I have resubmitted this repeal. Please support it, tell your friends, lobby your delegate, etc. :)

I have resubmitted this repeal. Please support it, tell your friends, lobby your delegate, etc. :)

I have cut down a tree in celebration of the resubmission of this repeal proposal.

The people of Cluichstan fail to understand why every worthless resolution requires a replacement for delegates to favour repeal.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN
Regional Delegate from Scybala

The U.N. should not purely engage in destruction, with regards to legislation, it should always have a decent replacement.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

The U.N. should not purely engage in destruction, with regards to legislation, it should always have a decent replacement.

Compadria, for the last fucking time, a replacement FOR WHAT? You actually want us to draft a replacement for this? Fine. Here it is.

REALIZING that Resolution #48 does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING,

HOWEVER NOTING that Compadria won't be satisfied until we replace it:

1. DECLARES that we love trees and animals!;

2. REQUIRES all member states to do fuck all;

3. Um...yeah that's it.

Please. I understand if you want more environmental legislation, but you have to explain what you mean by 'replace' because, in this case, it's not possible,

The U.N. should not purely engage in destruction, with regards to legislation, it should always have a decent replacement.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Not in cases in which a matter need not be addressed by UN legislation. The UN should not be passing legislation simply for the sake of legislating.

The U.N. should not purely engage in destruction, with regards to legislation, it should always have a decent replacement.Okay, look: if you feel that this illegal Resolution requires replacement, let's see a draft. Or an outline. Or even anything containing what a replacement should involve.

As it stands, this is an attempt to Repeal a Resolution that violates UN rules. This isn't an ex post facto application of my ruleset to a preexisting Resolution. "Save the forests of the World" violated the Enodian laws. It should never have been allowed on the floor for a vote.

So, tell me, how do you intend to "replace" an illegal Resolution and make said replacement legal?

The U.N. should not purely engage in destruction, with regards to legislation, it should always have a decent replacement.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

We suggest a far more accurate term than "destruction" would be "housecleaning". We see nothing wrong with taking out the garbage without replacing it. We support the repeal.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Approvals: 44
Status: Lacking Support (requires 86 more approvals)

Not bad for a first day, but they have to keep on coming. Please tell all the sapient delegates you know to at least read this repeal!

The U.N. should not purely engage in destruction, with regards to legislation, it should always have a decent replacement.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

I disagree.

If resolutions regarding Human Rights, Free Trade etc, can be repealed on the basis of being poorly worded, then there is no reason why Environmental resolutions should not be held to the same standard.

Yet, there remain a number of ridiculously short, undetailed Environmental resolutions that continue to exist. It is an insult to the UN, I believe, that such resolutions are allowed to exist simply for the sake of taxing industries to conserve the enivronment, without any specific details of implementation. Furthermore, a number of these resolutions overlap one another, which questions again their existence.

They should be repealed, but should not remain on the account of the lack of a better replacement, but because they are frankly, useless.

Okay, look: if you feel that this illegal Resolution requires replacement, let's see a draft. Or an outline. Or even anything containing what a replacement should involve.

As it stands, this is an attempt to Repeal a Resolution that violates UN rules. This isn't an ex post facto application of my ruleset to a preexisting Resolution. "Save the forests of the World" violated the Enodian laws. It should never have been allowed on the floor for a vote.

So, tell me, how do you intend to "replace" an illegal Resolution and make said replacement legal?

The Most Glorious Hack, I agree with you about #48 being illegal by nowadays standards, and that it recommands nothing. I approved the repeal.

But, it seems to me that the Enodian laws were effective after #48 passed, and that it's important that laws cannot be retroactive.

If i understand correctly: #2 Scientific Freedom would now also be illegal for another reason, branding. #2 is far from perfect of course, but but I think it's not because a resolution violate new rules (ie: branding) that it should never have beeen allowed on the floor for a vote.

But, it seems to me that the Enodian laws were effective after #48 passed, and that it's important that laws cannot be retroactive.Incorrect. The Enodian laws were enacted in October of 2003. #48 passed on Feb 19, 2004. The laws existed when this nonsense passed.

Incorrect. The Enodian laws were enacted in October of 2003. #48 passed on Feb 19, 2004. The laws existed when this nonsense passed.


Ok, you right, i was mistaken by the NSwiki timeline:

http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/UN_Timeline#2004_Third_Quarter

Approvals: 83
Status: Lacking Support (requires 46 more approvals)

Come on people. One last push for quorum!

At least go and take a look at the first proposals page:
http://www.nationstates.net/39744/page=UN_proposal/start=0

It is a sight to remember :)

I support this full repeal, as so do the people of Optischer.

People, I need 2 (two) (II) more approvals in the next few hours. If you are a delegate, and still haven't approved, please give me a chance of defending this in plenary vote. I will give you cookies.

This is so exciting I'm going to wet myself. Come on! Just two more.

*hands the representative from Gruenberg a mop*

Quorum Reached: In Queue!

Congrats!:)

Ahhhhhh...relief.

What's that awful smell?

Thanks, everybody. Cookies are on me tonight. (And no, that funny taste is NOT cannabis.) Gruen, please wash your hands before taking your cookies.

I love the smell of Gruenberger urine in the morning. It smells like...victory!

The Ausserland delegation has no comment on the odor of Gruenberger urine. None. Absolutely none. We are doing our very best to ignore both the subject and the odor. However, we do want to congratulate the honorable representative of Fonzoland on bringing this worthwhile repeal into the queue.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

I most humbly apologize for Save the forests of the World. It's my fault, you see. Really.


Back in February '04, I was on my third campaign for the passage of Rights and Duties of UN States. I almost made it twice, but lost out to timing issues in the submission queue. I had assistance from several UN regulars and even a couple of regions. We were telegramming like mad for most of the month, and had excellent response. Unfortunately, my fiddly games with timing cost me two full cycles, and we kept repeating. I bet we reached 90% of all Delegates in the game over the course of those three attempts.

Y'see, I included good directions to the proposal, including links. Those links took Delegates to a page that had not only my proposal, but immediately before it were Save the forests of the World and the now-deleted and unlamented Passport Harmonisation (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Passport_Harmonisation). I don't remember what followed Rights and Duties, but I imagine it sucked even worse. Seems they almost got in anyway, if memory serves.

So these Delegates got to the page, saw Rights and Duties, and said, "Aha! Something decent to vote for." But alas, they didn't stop there, and they also clicked the approval buttons on other handy but otherwise sucky stuff. The habit was just too deeply ingrained.

I've carried this burden for almost two years now, but the time has now come to shed this weight. Thanks to Salusa, who deleted Passport Harmonisation during the Jolt move, and now thanks to Fonzoland, who is poised to remove the last jagged bundle from my weary shoulders. Perhaps finally I can be at peace with NationStates.


I'm so sorry. It won't happen again.

I most humbly apologize for Save the forests of the World. It's my fault, you see. Really.


Back in February '04, I was on my third campaign for the passage of Rights and Duties of UN States. I almost made it twice, but lost out to timing issues in the submission queue. I had assistance from several UN regulars and even a couple of regions. We were telegramming like mad for most of the month, and had excellent response. Unfortunately, my fiddly games with timing cost me two full cycles, and we kept repeating. I bet we reached 90% of all Delegates in the game over the course of those three attempts.

Y'see, I included good directions to the proposal, including links. Those links took Delegates to a page that had not only my proposal, but immediately before it were Save the forests of the World and the now-deleted and unlamented Passport Harmonisation (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Passport_Harmonisation). I don't remember what followed Rights and Duties, but I imagine it sucked even worse. Seems they almost got in anyway, if memory serves.

So these Delegates got to the page, saw Rights and Duties, and said, "Aha! Something decent to vote for." But alas, they didn't stop there, and they also clicked the approval buttons on other handy but otherwise sucky stuff. The habit was just too deeply ingrained.

I've carried this burden for almost two years now, but the time has now come to shed this weight. Thanks to Salusa, who deleted Passport Harmonisation during the Jolt move, and now thanks to Fonzoland, who is poised to remove the last jagged bundle from my weary shoulders. Perhaps finally I can be at peace with NationStates.


I'm so sorry. It won't happen again.

Oh, don't blame yourself too much. You didn't make 'em vote for the dumb thing.

[The Ambassador-at-Large leans back in her chair and takes another sip from her unusually large coffee mug. Coffee with a head on it?]

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

--snip--

Well, there had to some reason how it got passed. But, the three that followed R&D - UNSC, Children In War, and Ballast Water - are, for all their various faults, not notably bad. Furthermore, I wonder the extent to which this kind of 'phenomenon' happened here: for the last couple of days, the front page has had a lot of approvals, even for seemingly weak proposals, which don't normally attract such support. The two queued proposals had big TG campaigns, so I wouldn't be surprised if 'Ban Torture', for example, sucked up a few 'extras'.

We aim to please. And remove guilt. And destroy forests. (oops, ignore the last one)

there does seem to be a lot more delegates around than normal.

OOC: I suppose with the holidays coming up people have more time to look at the queue.

there does seem to be a lot more delegates around than normal.

OOC: I suppose with the holidays coming up people have more time to look at the queue.

Hmm...I think it might be a mini-version of the scenario Fris described. Think about: Fonzoland and Sheknu each sent (individually or as a 'campaign team') hundreds of TGs. That had to stir a few delegates out of hiding.

Hmm...I think it might be a mini-version of the scenario Fris described. Think about: Fonzoland and Sheknu each sent (individually or as a 'campaign team') hundreds of TGs. That had to stir a few delegates out of hiding.

Yep, many hundreds from my side. Dunno about Sheknu, but it was the most efficient campaign I ever saw in my brief life here - he reached quorum in half the time I needed.

the three that followed R&D - UNSC, Children In War, and Ballast Water - are not notably bad.
I think Sydia's "Children in War" is second only to Enn's "Habeus Corpus" in terms of the number of unsuccessful submissions before somebody finally got behind it and pushed. I'm pretty sure Enn's ran for 4 or 5 months with regular submissions, and Sydia had the whole North Pacific forum bunch (featuring Greenspoint, Mikitivity, and several other Big UN Names at the time, IIRC) behind them.

Interesting how the group dynamics work out sometimes.

Gruenberger Fine Urine™
Try Gruenberger Fine Urine™, now available in the new "EZ-Spray" applicator!

Hey, you could market it as a lawn treatment!

Well, I wasn't around then, so I can't comment. I know Enn claims the record for the number of resubmissions - 15 - although if a certain capital punishment proposal ever reaches quorum, that will be slaughtered. (Well, ok, sentenced to life without parole.)

Well, I wasn't around then, so I can't comment. I know Enn claims the record for the number of resubmissions - 15 - although if a certain capital punishment proposal ever reaches quorum, that will be slaughtered. (Well, ok, sentenced to life without parole.)

Is anyone keeping track of the numbers, btw? It seems it will set an unbeatable record even if it never reaches quorum.

Is anyone keeping track of the numbers, btw? It seems it will set an unbeatable record even if it never reaches quorum.

I've lost count. I would ask the submitter himself, but I can't phrase it in a way that doesn't come off as gloating, so I won't bother. Suffice it to say 'a lot'.

It just dawned on me that I will have my name on two repeals, voted back to back. I suddenly feel stronger, more experienced. Never underestimate the power of the dark side... :cool:

Booya.

Finally something can be put to vote. Praise the Dark Side!

[The Ambassador-at-Large leans back in her chair and takes another sip from her unusually large coffee mug. Coffee with a head on it?]

Whose head?!?

Whose head?!?

People, please behave. This is a family-friendly thread. :p

Try Gruenberger Fine Urine™, now available in the new "EZ-Spray" applicator!

Hey, you could market it as a lawn treatment!

Ew...

I love forrests! And in Venerable libertarians we are proud of our "Many Lush Forrests" in which our national Animal, The Blue Huggy Bear frolics freely.

This repeal however has our support as its a load of toothless tosh.

Happy christmas to all tree loving outdoor types.

As the president of a nation covered in 75% rainforest whose highest priority is keeping it that way, my UN delegate has asked me to read off this prepared statement:

"Dear United Nations:

NONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONO!

Sincerely,
Delegate Terry Stratton"

As the president of a nation covered in 75% rainforest whose highest priority is keeping it that way, my UN delegate has asked me to read off this prepared statement:

"Dear United Nations:

NONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONO!

Sincerely,
Delegate Terry Stratton"

This resolution doesn't do anything. I could, under the terms of this resolution, deforest your entire country, legally. I think I may do so, in fact.

As the president of a nation covered in 75% rainforest whose highest priority is keeping it that way, my UN delegate has asked me to read off this prepared statement:

"Dear United Nations:

NONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONO!

Sincerely,
Delegate Terry Stratton"

We sincerely respect the concern of the representative of Great Plains for preserving his impressive environment. The problem is that the resolution to be repealed does nothing to help in that worthwhile endeavor. It doesn't mandate anything, or require anything, or even urge or suggest anything. It just makes a pretty little statement and then does nothing.

Ausserland strongly supports reasonable and effective NSUN legislation addressing environmental concerns. We also support the repeal of this nicely written but -- in practical terms -- worthless resolution.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

After much consideration, we, the people of The Republic of Westenwales, rally our support for this repeal.

While we are in full support of the preservation and conservation of our ecological resources, we do not support acts of legislature that offer no clear and/or precise form of recommended action.

We also support the repeal of this nicely written but -- in practical terms -- worthless resolution.

Uh? What in Santa's name do you mean by "nicely written"???

Uh? What in Santa's name do you mean by "nicely written"???

The Ambassador-at-Large from Ausserland jumps to her feet, slamming her large mug of... er... coffee on the desk.

"I'll have the gentleman from Fonzoland know that I worked very hard to find something nice to say about that... thing!" she growls. "After all, it is Christmas Eve!"

She plops back down in her chair, humming a deservedly obscure Christmas carol.

Might I recommend:

Look to the sky, way up on high
There in the night stars are now right.
Eons have passed: now then at last
Prison walls break, Old Ones awake!
They will return: mankind will learn
New kinds of fear when they are here.
They will reclaim all in their name;
Hopes turn to black when they come back.
Ignorant fools, mankind now rules
Where they ruled then: it's theirs again

Stars brightly burning, boiling and churning
Bode a returning season of doom

Scary scary scary scary solstice
Very very very scary solstice

Up from the sea, from underground
Down from the sky, they're all around
They will return: mankind will learn
New kinds of fear when they are here

Look to the sky, way up on high
There in the night stars are now right.
Eons have passed: now then at last
Prison walls break, Old Ones awake!
Madness will reign, terror and pain
Woes without end where they extend.
Ignorant fools, mankind now rules
Where they ruled then: it's theirs again

Stars brightly burning, boiling and churning
Bode a returning season of doom

Scary scary scary scary solstice
Very very very scary solstice

Up from the sea, from underground
Down from the sky, they're all around.

Fear

(Look to the sky, way up on high
There in the night stars now are right)

They will return.

Might I recommend:
*snip*

Oh goody, a satanist mod; I was wondering why people were drawn to this forum! :D

That song would actually make a good UNOG hymn...

lol, who knows maybe it is

I love forrests! And in Venerable libertarians we are proud of our "Many Lush Forrests" in which our national Animal, The Blue Huggy Bear frolics freely.

This repeal however has our support as its a load of toothless tosh.

Happy christmas to all tree loving outdoor types.


I quite agree, there is no point in thse wishy-washy half measures, this resolution is teh answer to nothing!

The people of Cluichstan fail to understand why every worthless resolution requires a replacement for delegates to favour repeal.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN
Regional Delegate from Scybala

Hear,Hear! The delegate of Palentine UN office applaudes the eloquence of our esteemed colleague Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich.<applause and cheers!>:D

Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla
Palentine UN Office
"New Improved Barbaric Militant Machismo 24/7"

I have cut down a tree in celebration of the resubmission of this repeal proposal.

I'd join you, but we have no trees in the Antarctic Oasis.:D

Not in cases in which a matter need not be addressed by UN legislation. The UN should not be passing legislation simply for the sake of legislating.

Deeply moved by the eloquence and with tears in his eyes, Sen. Horatio Sulla presents The Order of the Sphinxian treecat(the highest award a non Palentine person can recieve) to the Ambassador of Cluicistan, along with a Primanti Bros(TM) gift certificate.

IPassport Harmonisation (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Passport_Harmonisation)[/b]....Thanks to Salusa, who deleted Passport Harmonisation during the Jolt move

Sir Cyril whistles, concealing the fact he has written a sort of replacement to Passport Harmonisation...

Just a reminder: this resolution does nothing. It. does. nothing. The repeal will remove it, but it will not lead to sudden massive deforestation. The only debate here is administrative, not environmental. If you oppose the repeal, then you do so because you do not believe the UN should remove waste legislation.

I would like to add my support to this repeal. As a member of the Green Think Tank I would like to confirm the ambassador from Gruenburg's points.

As it stands 'Save the forests of the world' is an essay that does nothing. Its so toothless it would be deleted on the spot if submitted today.

I've noticed that the vote is close at the moment but repealing this will not reduce the amount of legislative protective our forests have. Since the resolution does nothing in the first place getting rid of this will let us concentrate on enforcing existing resolutions that protect our forests and legislate the logging industry.

Honoured Delegates and Ambassadors if you voted against this because you value your forests we are on your side. Its better to get rid of a law that does nothing and you will be free to propose one that will do a better job.

Support the repeal and together we can get rid off this essay of a law.

Ambassador Kaigan Miromuta

I would like to add my support to this repeal. As a member of the Green Think Tank I would like to confirm the ambassador from Gruenburg's points.

As it stands 'Save the forests of the world' is an essay that does nothing. Its so toothless it would be deleted on the spot if submitted today.

I've noticed that the vote is close at the moment but repealing this will not reduce the amount of legislative protective our forests have. Since the resolution does nothing in the first place getting rid of this will let us concentrate on enforcing existing resolutions that protect our forests and legislate the logging industry.

Honoured Delegates and Ambassadors if you voted against this because you value your forests we are on your side. Its better to get rid of a law that does nothing and you will be free to propose one that will do a better job.

Support the repeal and together we can get rid off this essay of a law.

Ambassador Kaigan Miromuta

We believe our honorable colleague from Kirisubo makes an excellent point. We believe wholeheartedly in removing legislative dead wood from the books. And the resolution to be repealed is an excellent example of a completely useless resolution.

The other point to which Ambassador Miromuta alludes should be of concern even to those who can't see the value in cleaning house of statutory trash. With "Save the Forests" in place, someone with a good idea for a forest conservation proposal might hesitate to draft one, mistakenly thinking that the existing resolution already covers the issue. That would be a shame.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

Approved. Best wishes.

Votes For: 1,776
Votes Against: 1,371

Thanks to all for your support. Apparently, there are no concerns with this repeal in this forum, and yet the vote is very tight. Please do mention this repeal to any delegates or UN members you might know.

So By inacting this course you mean to cripple nations that are heavy into industury and cut down thier forsets. That sir is wrong and i will not support any act that would do so.

So By inacting this course you mean to cripple nations that are heavy into industury and cut down thier forsets. That sir is wrong and i will not support any act that would do so.

Um...no.

The resolution does nothing. It has no effect. The repeal will remove it. The repeal will therefore have no effect. If the repeal passes, nations that rely on the timber industry will be able to do what they like.

So By inacting this course you mean to cripple nations that are heavy into industury and cut down thier forsets. That sir is wrong and i will not support any act that would do so.

re·peal
tr.v.
1. To revoke or rescind, especially by an official or formal act.
2. Obsolete. To summon back or recall, especially from exile.
n.
The act or process of repealing.

Thank you for your time.

EDIT: And just in case...
re·voke: tr.v. To void or annul by recalling, withdrawing, or reversing.
re·scind: tr.v. To make void; repeal or annul.

The Holy Empire of Devoting Athiest and the region oh Milwakinsaws has your full support.

The Holy Empire of Devoting Athiest and the region oh Milwakinsaws has your full support.

If you say so. What am I supporting you on, by the way? :D
(I got it, thanks.)

"While decreasing the would chipping industry would, in the short term, over hundreds of years the over all efects..."
Spectacular!

We're in favor of any repeal to this anemic nonsense. It's not even good as an essay.

What exactly doce this meen. Will rainforests now be cutdown to make wood chipsor will it be saved because no way will i let my nations forests be cutdown.

What exactly doce this meen. Will rainforests now be cutdown to make wood chipsor will it be saved because no way will i let my nations forests be cutdown.

No. The original resolution does nothing to protect your forests. By repealing it, we're making way for the possibility of a resolution which would save your forests. If you vote for the repeal, your forests will be no worse off.

No. The original resolution does nothing to protect your forests. By repealing it, we're making way for the possibility of a resolution which would save your forests. If you vote for the repeal, your forests will be no worse off.
Yeah! Great! So who has the replacement proposal?! **cricket cricket** Uh-huh. Maybe Fonzoland should lay off the repeals. He's just got one through, now let's push another. Wait! Better yet! Let's get rid of all the proposals. Anarchy! NOW!

**"Do you think they caught the sarcasm?"**

SqR

Haha that was really funny lol rofl

Seriously, what's your problem? Firstly, learn to read: Fonzoland didn't write the repeal of "Right to Divorce". He did me a favour by submitting it: that's it. Secondly, regardless of replacements, of anything else, Resolution #48 does, and let's really spell this one out

JACKSHIT

Why on earth would you oppose a repeal?

all you say is that this resolution is vague and not very descriptive... How then I ask do you plan to solve the entire question... Do you repeal the idea or the actual draft... It seems to me (from my understanding) that you want the resolution rewritten. I would like to know who's writing it and when it will be preposed... until then i see no replacement or guarantee that this issue will be resolved.

Firstly...I don't think thats a word, is it?

i am confused a little bit. Once we get rid of this will we write a new law in its place? Or why was this even made i thought under the "Tree Replacement" Act that nations had to plant trees anyway. Or are we just getting rid of it cause it does nothing.

i am confused a little bit. Once we get rid of this will we write a new law in its place? Or why was this even made i thought under the "Tree Replacement" Act that nations had to plant trees anyway. Or are we just getting rid of it cause it does nothing.

We're getting rid of it because it does nothing. And you're right, we already have legislation in place to protect forests: Replanting Trees and Illegal Logging.

Then who came up with the stupid law in the first place... due to this new light, i switch sides seeing that there really is no use for it.

Then who came up with the stupid law in the first place... due to this new light, i switch sides seeing that there really is no use for it.

Excellent. As for the original resolution author, they no longer play NS.

The proposed resolution calling for repeal of Resolution 48 does not define how it is unnecessary or redundant. Therefore, I voted against repeal.

The proposed resolution calling for repeal of Resolution 48 does not define how it is unnecessary or redundant. Therefore, I voted against repeal.
"NOTING that it does not mandate or recommend any course of action to further the cause of sustainability, rendering it ineffective" not definitive enough for ya? Resolution 48 is unnecessary because it does nothing, except prevent the resolution list from skipping from #47 to #49.

The proposed resolution calling for repeal of Resolution 48 does not define how it is unnecessary or redundant. Therefore, I voted against repeal.

The burden of proof does not lie on us, if the resolution does not make a single mandate or recomendation. But OK, since apparently some people cannot be bothered to look at the resolution and make up their own minds, I will post it here. The operative part of the resolution states:

Solution
While decreasing the would chipping industry would, in the short term, over hundreds of years the over all efects on the enviroment would realy save the world from the rampart destruction of forest that it has fallen into a cycle of.

Now, I wonder if Bostoniense would be so kind as to explain to the rest of us what this sentence actually tells UN members to do.

The proposed resolution calling for repeal of Resolution 48 does not define how it is unnecessary or redundant. Therefore, I voted against repeal.

We cannot help but wonder if the representative of Bostoniense bothered reading Resolution #48 before voting against its repeal. If he had, it seems likely he would have seen for himself that the resolution does absolutely nothing.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

We must repeal the sickeningly inadequate Resolution #48. Not only does it violate my nation's principles by suggesting we conserve the useless and obstructive trees, it does so poorly. This will be a glorious first step in repealing all unfair conservation laws.

Down with trees!

Arboreally Yours,
The Chaos Turtle
Grimly Sarcastic Overlord of Mephistopia

Currently I am against this proposal to repeal, but I will support it only if it means the drafting of a new resolution with the same intentions of 48, but is more clear.

I don't have the time to read through 6 pages, please telegraph me explaining this matter.

Teid's prime industry is woodchipping so this is important, but I would like to prevent deforestation for 2 reasons, one of which is promoting the lifespan of woodchipping.

Thank you.

Currently I am against this proposal to repeal, but I will support it only if it means the drafting of a new resolution with the same intentions of 48, but is more clear.

I don't have the time to read through 6 pages, please telegraph me explaining this matter.

Teid's prime industry is woodchipping so this is important, but I would like to prevent deforestation for 2 reasons, one of which is promoting the lifespan of woodchipping.

Thank you.

Summary.

1. Res #48 does absolutely nothing. It is an essay about:
- All the nasty things that can happen if we cut forests;
- All the wonderful things that would happen if we stopped cutting forests.
Unfortunately, the author forgot the part where he actually tells UN members what to do. As such, this text is not legislation at all; it is, at best, a poorly written introduction to legislation.

2. The intentions of saving forests are enshrined in "Replanting trees" and "Illegal logging"; the intentions of saving endangered species are in "UNCoESB". If Res #48 actually did something, it would be in duplication of those.

3. "Save the forests" is illegal as hell. If it were submitted today, it would be deleted by the mods. It should have been deleted then.

To prove the last point, the official (game mod) view is
As it stands, this is an attempt to Repeal a Resolution that violates UN rules. This isn't an ex post facto application of my ruleset to a preexisting Resolution. "Save the forests of the World" violated the Enodian laws. It should never have been allowed on the floor for a vote.

Hell, I can barely read Resolution #48. Poorly worded and constructed. If this repeal leads to a clearer and better version of the resolution, I'm all for it.

The burden of proof does not lie on us, if the resolution does not make a single mandate or recomendation. But OK, since apparently some people cannot be bothered to look at the resolution and make up their own minds, I will post it here. The operative part of the resolution states:



Now, I wonder if Bostoniense would be so kind as to explain to the rest of us what this sentence actually tells UN members to do.

It tells them to STAY IN SCHOOL...or run their posts through spell check, one of the two.

Hell, I can barely read Resolution #48. Poorly worded and constructed. If this repeal leads to a clearer and better version of the resolution, I'm all for it.

I agree and I understand that is the purpose of the petition to repeal?


Would we then repeal the other acts, or create a new enviromental resolution and then remove the other resolutions?

The repeal removes Resolution #48. It does not remove Replanting Trees and Illegal Logging, so your forests are still protected.

I must stress that my ecomony is not teh only one to benefit from the huntring and selling on the food market of other nations exotic animals. VOTING AGAINST the resolution will protect our economies!

I must stress that my ecomony is not teh only one to benefit from the huntring and selling on the food market of other nations exotic animals. VOTING AGAINST the resolution will protect our economies!

...

I think you have the wrong thread. This is a repeal of economic legislation: it will improve your economy. If you vote for it.

(enter Smedley. Instead of wearing his usual mysteriously stained unitard, he's wearing a large towel with rows of tap-dancing fiddler crabs. The middle row is replaced by the words:"My half-cusin went to Cluichistan and I only got this stoopid (spot for the 't' is missing)owel". One of his four honor guard seems awfully tall, thin blue and pointy eared, and anther is quite hirsute and has a hole in the back of his towel where one might expect a tail to grow, if one were to expect such a thing)

The Duke opposes this repeal of Right to Divorce because it fails to mention the odious requirement for lawyers, and wants to be sure if any new draft is created it omits them, as we have killed all of our...

(he is now interrupted by the two human members of his honor guard, there is a long pause while they explain the issue up to vote to him...)

Er, we're pretty sure we don't have any such things as forests in GGGG as none of the ingredients of the national drink come from trees. If it can't get you snockered or be a mixer, the Duke won't be interested, I can tell you that without even talking to him. Since it doesn't affect us, we'd normally we'd be happy to vote for this, in the interest of international cooperation and understanding.

He is most eager for the opportunity to rigorously apply new NSUN rules to his little playthi...citizenry and is disapointed at the lack of new regulations from this international body. For this reason, he has directed me to vote no on this repeal and any subsequent one until some new laws are passed.

I have no damn idea what the hell that shit means, why can't you give a flat-out explanation of whatever the hell it does before i f-ing vote for or against it.

:headbang: :confused: :fluffle: :mp5: :sniper: :gundge:

I have no damn idea what the hell that shit means, why can't you give a flat-out explanation of whatever the hell it does before i f-ing vote for or against it.

The resolution does NOTHING.

The repeal will remove that law, and will thus have no effect on your nation, but will remove redundant legislation.

I think that shit's clear enough.

The Duke opposes this repeal of Right to Divorce. ... He is most eager for the opportunity to rigorously apply new NSUN rules to his little playthi...citizenry and is disapointed at the lack of new regulations from this international body. For this reason, he has directed me to vote no on this repeal and any subsequent one until some new laws are passed.That's great. Why doesn't your delegation propose a new law?

Save the forests of the World
A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry. A very Nice Idea. We In VL Love our vast lush forests.


Category: Environmental
Industry Affected: Woodchipping
Proposed by: The lords of the islesSo far its doing nicely.

Description: For years the forest of numerous nations have been abused and destroyed for profit. In many nations, this is reaching critical leavels, almost to the point where all the forests are gone. If we destroy the forests now, they're gone. Forever. My reasons for this proposal are twofold: Oh crap! Its all going Pear shaped! First it should be forests. Second, Forever? cant they re-sow and grow? Ok it will take a while but hey it can be done! Cant it?

1. Enviromental Concerns
The destruction of the rainforest has a major destructive effect on the enviroment. Countless spieces of plant and animal will be destroyed if deforestation continues at the rate that it is currently. These animals would be dead, and thier would be no way of resurecting them, short of cloning, which rases an entirly diferent moral issue. The simple fact is that the destruction of rainforest is simply pointless destruction as thier is no way to make the forests renewable without seriously cutting the money that they make, which is the reason for thier destruction anyway! The mindless destroying of a valuable national resorce will, in the long run, achieve nothing. Sweet Jesus! someone give this chap a word processor for christmas! I mean How the hell did this pass?
1, The spelling mistakes are deplorable and
2, This quote was arguement number 1. So what are we the UN members subcribed to this resolution to do under this piece of legislation? well lets read on. Perhaps its below?

2. Thoughts of the future
By destroying the forests today, there is no way that they will produce money in the future, either through turism or logging. People don't recognise that, while forests make more money more quickly when felled on the mass scale, in the long run, monetarily the same amount of money could be produced by carefully felling a section of forest, then helping it regrow. This way, the woods produced would be more valuable on the international market due to the decreased availability of the timber. Over a longer amount of time, the money produced would, in fact, outstrip the money made by the wanton destruction. The forest would, with help, renew its self and go on making money. As and added bonus, turism would increase. Cool erm I think? erm but ah er what are we to do under the provisions of this Resolution? So far that was statement of what could be done if we wished. erm perhaps the provisions of the resolution will be below? I am losing hope.

Solution
While decreasing the would chipping industry would, in the short term, over hundreds of years the over all efects on the enviroment would realy save the world from the rampart destruction of forest that it has fallen into a cycle of. WTF does this mean? erm are my Ramparts to my massive castle rotten? crap! that means i shall have to cut down more trees to shore up my Shoddy ramparts!
Where are the provisions dictating what we as nations signed up to this resolution are expected to do to save our forests?

In summary, This is a bull sh1t useless piece of crap resolution that should never have been passed in the first Place.


Votes For: 12,460Fluffy illiterate morons
Votes Against: 7,244 Enlightened Nations of Genious

Implemented: Thu Feb 19 2004 Repealed: ASAP!

This has been a public rant on behalf of a nation of ecological Tree Huggers.

this seems like a pro industry proposal, why do you want to get rid of it (other than what you stated) can i please have some examples?

this seems like a pro industry proposal, why do you want to get rid of it (other than what you stated) can i please have some examples?
Quite simply the resolution is simply a statement. It does nothing. It does not in any place or part imply that anything is to be done. It makes statements how it could be done and ought to be done but again nowhere in the text does it enforce any measures to aid the regeneration of forrests or enforce any protections. Therefore the resolution is a dud.
Also the Resolutions of the UN are enshrined forever and should be worded correctly without spelling mistakes etc. The Part of this resolution labled "Solution" is point in case of how bad spelling and grammatical errors only serve to confuse and in most cases can even lead to loopholes. Thus making the legislation irrevelant anyway.

VL.

There's nothing wrong with a pro-industry resolution as long as it states realistic methods of implementation.

Similarly, there's nothing wrong with a pro-environmental resolution if it is logical and realistic. This one is not.

A very Nice Idea. We In VL Love our vast lush forests.


So far its doing nicely.

Oh crap! Its all going Pear shaped! First it should be forests. Second, Forever? cant they re-sow and grow? Ok it will take a while but hey it can be done! Cant it?

Sweet Jesus! someone give this chap a word processor for christmas! I mean How the hell did this pass?
1, The spelling mistakes are deplorable and
2, This quote was arguement number 1. So what are we the UN members subcribed to this resolution to do under this piece of legislation? well lets read on. Perhaps its below?

Cool erm I think? erm but ah er what are we to do under the provisions of this Resolution? So far that was statement of what could be done if we wished. erm perhaps the provisions of the resolution will be below? I am losing hope.

WTF does this mean? erm are my Ramparts to my massive castle rotten? crap! that means i shall have to cut down more trees to shore up my Shoddy ramparts!
Where are the provisions dictating what we as nations signed up to this resolution are expected to do to save our forests?

In summary, This is a bull sh1t useless piece of crap resolution that should never have been passed in the first Place.


Fluffy illiterate morons
Enlightened Nations of Genious

Repealed: ASAP!

This has been a public rant on behalf of a nation of ecological Tree Huggers.

We would like to formally condemn VL for driving us to uncontrollable laughter in the midst of a serious discussion. Other than that, we agree.

10 points for humour there VL.

This is more red tape that we have to tip toe around. It wastes time and doesn't actually do anything. It is a waste of space, and it should most definitely be repealed

The government of Telidia herewith formally offers our support in favour of this repeal. Over time this body has built up a great deal of environmental legislation and as such it is no surprise we will find some previously passed legislation no longer fulfil their aims as effectively.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations, Dept Foreign Affairs
HM Government of Telidia

I voted against this repeal becuse Dismembered Pirates belives that The UN should come up with a document thta allows clear cutting farther than the previously made agreement. However, it also should put a limmit or quota to the amont of harvesting and set boundries on the important parts of our woodlands and fertile lands.

Thank You,
The Leader of Dismembered Pirates
"Down with the fierce midget pirates of Willygoat!"

I voted against this repeal becuse Dismembered Pirates belives that The UN should come up with a document thta allows clear cutting farther than the previously made agreement. However, it also should put a limmit or quota to the amont of harvesting and set boundries on the important parts of our woodlans and fertile lands.

...none of which this resolution does. By voting against this repeal, you are doing more to actually prevent the passage of such a proposal.

this seems like a pro industry proposal, why do you want to get rid of it (other than what you stated) can i please have some examples?

:headbang: exactly so vote against this i deplore you all!

...none of which this resolution does. By voting against this repeal, you are doing more to actually prevent the passage of such a proposal.

Thank you very much for clarifying that for me. It was a bit confusing to me when i red it. From here forth Dismembered Pirates is for the current Repeal.

The Leader of Dismembered Pirates

The Malairian representative fails to see how resolution #48 passed if the first place.

Whether you have industry in your nation that requires "would" to survive, or just enjoy walking through the "would"s, if I were you I "wood" vote to repeal that eyesore.

A section of the population of the great nation of Ardchoille urged me to vote in favour of the repeal because the original resolution was illiterate.

Another section of the (etc etc) said this was an elitist, intolerant view and we should take into consideration the fact that the original proposer's heart was in the right place. However, they said, they ultimately supported it owing to the favourable effects the repeal would have on our prized population of light-seeking forest moss.

A third group said this was simply bad science. Furthermore, anything the second group supported was a bit suss. Nonetheless, they favoured a repeal because the original resolution was clearly redundant.

A fourth group said something to the effect of who yer lookin' at then and smashed a bottle.

In the light of the all-out brawl that has now developed in my nation's capital, and the fact that all the fun will be over if I don't get back there soon, I cast Ardchoille's vote in favour of the repeal.

A section of the population of the great nation of Ardchoille urged me to vote in favour of the repeal because the original resolution was illiterate.

Another section of the (etc etc) said this was an elitist, intolerant view and we should take into consideration the fact that the original proposer's heart was in the right place. However, they said, they ultimately supported it owing to the favourable effects the repeal would have on our prized population of light-seeking forest moss.

A third group said this was simply bad science. Furthermore, anything the second group supported was a bit suss. Nonetheless, they favoured a repeal because the original resolution was clearly redundant.

A fourth group said something to the effect of who yer lookin' at then and smashed a bottle.

In the light of the all-out brawl that has now developed in my nation's capital, and the fact that all the fun will be over if I don't get back there soon, I cast Ardchoille's vote in favour of the repeal.

We formally thank groups one and three, while looking forward to meeting group four. I would challenge the second group to provide evidence of the exact location of the author's heart. A biopsy would do.

Yah don't destroy the rainforest it gives us Oxygen and it yet to be fully explored. Natrual wonders are being destroyed by man everyday think we could still find new speices and it be a shame to lose a whole new speices*SAVE THE RAINFOREST :(

*ducks flying custard tart*

Obano, the original resolution doesn't protect anything. It doesn't DO anything. It's clutter. That's why my nation's voting to repeal it, despite the fact that we're so green you'd think we were Irish.

Now, if you'll excuse me, we're having a lovely bingle here.

*replies in kind*

*continues hurling custard tarts*

*intercepts a custard tart*
*checks it for edibility*

Fonzoland's going to have three successive proposals at vote. Don't think that's been done before.

(Ok, I know RRtD doesn't actually count...and that Artistic Freedom is Jey's...but shut up.)

Fonzoland's going to have three successive proposals at vote. Don't think that's been done before.

(Ok, I know RRtD doesn't actually count...and that Artistic Freedom is Jey's...but shut up.)

:) OK, I should get a life.

Resolution #48 does absolutely nothing. It isn't a law, it's rhetoric. If it was submitted today, it would be deleted for format violations.

There's nothing to replace, as it does nothing.

It would be replaced by something that actually did something.

It would be replaced by something that actually did something.
What this resolution tries and fails miserably to do is already done by resolution #23 so there is no need to replace this one.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I hate trees.




What good have they done?




Seriously, never have a tree saved my life...ok...there's that air thing...



Well I say F*ck trees.


















BTW: New Hamilton will not sell cars to any Nation that will support this resolution.

O











k.

Well I say F*ck trees.

Watch out for splinters...

Well I say F*ck trees.
BTW: New Hamilton will not sell cars to any Nation that will support this resolution.Not big on reading comprehension in New Hamilton, hmm?

Or do you just need to look up the definition to "Repeal"?

The resolution Repeal "Save the forests of the World" was passed 8,769 votes to 3,432.

Yay! Congratulations Fonzoland.

*hurls custard pie randomly*

Fonzoland's going to have three successive proposals at vote. Don't think that's been done before.
It's been done before. "The Global Market" placed three consecutive proposals in 3rd Quarter 2003 (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/UN_Timeline), all of which failed. Fonzoland may set a record for consecutive victories, but TGM has already won the persistance award.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a118/teddygrahams113/untitled.jpg
Antarctic Oasis (www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_region/region=antarctic_oasis) Department of UN Affairs
"We will bury you!"A little late coming, we'll admit; nonetheless it is our duty to inform this body that Sen. Horatio Sulla of Palentine UN Office (www.nationstates.net/palentine_un_office), the delegate for our region, almost didn't vote on this resolution. I mean, what's the point? he thought, as he curled up on his couch and proceeded to waste away the entire week with his eyes glued to the TV screen, munching on Fine Yeldan Cheetos™ and developing bedsores. But at the very last moment, just as "All My Children" was about to start, he thought, I'm just sitting on my ass doing nothing and serving no good use to anybody! Just like the resolution they're repealing right now! Having thus suffered a change of heart, Sulla triumphantly appeared in these hallowed halls to cast his region's votes IN FAVOR of this repeal. Happy New Year's to all.VICTORY IS MINE!!

Congratulations Fonzoland on repealing this bad resolution. The Realm commends you on your actions and looks forward to working with your nation in the future. Best wishes for 2006 and congrats again.

VL.

If the resolutions were actually in laman's terms and none of this insider-bullshit, I'd actually be able to understand it, and possibly vote on it.

P.S.) How does my national animal, the red fox, one of the most abundant creatures in the entire world, become almost extinct?

What don't you understand? What more basic terminology do you need, jackass? Learn how to read.

P.S.) Your national animal is the PHEASANT, not the RED FOX.

Yey, a new year gift! :) Thanks to all who supported and lobbied for this resolution, especially to Gruenberg, Shenku, and Kirisubo for helping out with the campaign (if I forgot anybody, please hit me).

Yay. Another worthless piece of tripe removed from the UN. Quick! Get that vapid tree-replanting one!