NationStates Jolt Archive

THE REPEAL OF "THE PREVENTION OF TERRORISM" IS UP FOR VOTE STARTING OCT.23 WHICH MEANS WE HAVE 3 DAYS, TILL OCT. 26 TO REACH QUORUM!

here's the link:

http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_...atch=terrorism

HERE IS THE COPY OF IT. IT HAS BEEN CHANGED AND DEBATED MANY TIMES AND LETS VOTE FOR IT. IF SOMEONE COULD PROVIDE AN ADEQUATE LINK TO IT I WOULD BE GREATFUL.

The Altan Steppes and myself would be greatful if anyone could help with with the telegram campaign we will be doing to help finally repeal this flawed resolution. thank you.



ACKNOWLEDGING the resolution’s valiant effort to fight and eliminate both international and internal terrorism,

NOTING that the Prevention of Terrorism resolution fails to ever define or interpret what constitutes a terrorist, terrorist organization, or terrorism,

REGRETTING that the proposal allows too broad an interpretation of the controversial words mentioned above,

REALIZING that such undefined terms could lead to false accusations between member states toward possibly innocent and neutral states, which could lead to declarations of war, and endangering international peace,

NOTING that the resolution in question does not outline any specific steps or take any concrete action that would actually protect WA member states from terrorism;

FURTHER NOTING that the resolution does not bar member states from providing financial or material support for terrorist individuals or organizations;

FURTHER REGRETTING that the resolution in question prevents more effective legislation on terrorism from being introduced;

SEEKING an opportunity to establish a better, more accurate resolution to help more effectively fight global terrorism with well established definitions of those mentioned in this and former Resolutions,

The World Assembly hereby repeals the “Prevention of Terrorism” resolution.

i ask for a resolution because i can't get a link which will follow the resolution as it progresses thank you.

http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=terrorism

thank you for your help.

Sorry, I'm off for the weekend tomorrow.

I am actually off for the weekend as well. I'll try to TG for it as much as I can though when I have a spare moment. If we're not able to get it through this time, we'll try again. Patience and persistence will (hopefully) pay off.

thank you anyway

33 approvals and two days to go!

43 approvals and today's the last day! 44 more!

37 more approvals needed!

well... it didn't pass, but we got a HUGE database of active delegates to telegram next time we try. we were something like... 30 approvals short. that's the most progress we've made!

so the repeal didn't pass but it's not a complete loss.

Indeed, and we will give this another shot soon. We have two lists of former approvals to work with. We'll get this done eventually.

lol.... perseverance is all we need. ;P

I am bumping this thread because the resolution is currently at vote.

Could we get this pinned, please?

The Government of the Emperor of Urgench is delighted to be able to have instructed its Ambassador to the w.a. to vote for this repeal. We await the opportunity to vote for its replacement.

Yours sincerely,

The Government of the Emperor of Urgench is delighted to be able to have instructed its Ambassador to the w.a. to vote for this repeal. We await the opportunity to vote for its replacement.

As always, we appreciate the support of the fine nation of Urgench. We shall be sure to send you something nice in appreciation.

Speaking of the proposed replacement, it's here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=568863). We hope that this will alleviate any concerns about repealing the ineffective resolution currently in place.

The Kingdom of Atanatari is also pleased to support the replacement. I will encourage all members of my region to suppot the repeal act.

I notice with considerable displeasure that the co-authorship credit for the nation that did the lion's share of the drafting work has somehow gone missing. In light of that, I'm reconsidering my vote.

My co-author and I have spoken on the issue. you can speak to him about it also, i explained to him what happened and he accepted it. plus now we can't change anything.

if you must know why his name is listed as co-author, here's the story:

when we agreed to put up the repeal on friday, i had done it in great haste. i copy pasted the repeal from the forum very quickly and didn't highlight completely down, where it had listed him as co-author. i didn't do it on purpose, and i have told him, that when he proposes the replacement (should the repeal pass) he shouldn't be obliged to include me as co-author the that legislation. i told him i would understand.

but being the respectable and forgiving friend he is, he informed me he only wanted to get it passed. he would also include me on the replacement. i apologized about it and we dicussed it some more.

again, even though he told me he would include me as co-author, i would understand if he didn't and would respect his wishes.

i would urge you to vote based on ideals and not on happenings.

Wachichi

OOC: I appreciate the support and concern, but I've spoken with Wachichi and I'm satisfied that the co-author issue was merely a simple oversight. I hope that the oversight won't discourage anyone from voting for this repeal; I can't submit the replacement without it.

In repsonse to Wachichi's comment on the thread about the passing of the terrorism bill:

My nation (in RL) is terrorism. I've formed my judgements on working and befirending who a generation ago (or just 10 years ago) were the "enemy"

Terrorism isn't the issue. It is inernational peace and reconcilliation that needs to happen.

As WA Delegate of Peaceful Place, I will be using my votes to support the resolution. I hope the rest of the nations in my region, will do so as well.

ambassador, persuading your constituency to vote for the repeal would be greatly helpful.

also, Emmbok, the replacement aims at promoting and suppressing reasons for violence between nations on claims of terrorism sponsoring states. if your nations was forced for what some people would consider terrorism and now you are the leaders of your country, i think you would do all you can to suppress terrorism in your region from groups who oppose you? am i wrong? or would you welcome their chaos and destruction?

Wachichi

But if they had ligitmate reasoning to be opposing me then I shouldn't suppress them. That's what I see "terrorism" as. People going to violent extremes to stand up to their opressers.

so even if they had a legitimate reason, you would allow them to reek havoc all over your country?

you should be advocating for peace and/or civil disobedience not violence.

Wachichi

so even if they had a legitimate reason, you would allow them to reek havoc all over your country?

you should be advocating for peace and/or civil disobedience not violence.

Wachichi


We have voted for this repeal and will vote for its replacement and are opposed to the scourge of indiscriminate violence inflicted on innocent civilians for political ends, however we would point out to the honoured and respected Ambassador for Wachichi that some nations will have sensitivities relating to the truism that "One man's Terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" and that such states may well need more delicate handling in the processes associated with this repeal and its replacement.

Yours sincerely,

Does this proposal do anything?

"Prevention of Terrorism" does not do anything, since it fails to even define terrorism. That is why this repeal must pass, so that resolution that actually accomplishes something can be passed.

I notice with considerable displeasure that the co-authorship credit for the nation that did the lion's share of the drafting work has somehow gone missing. In light of that, I'm reconsidering my vote.We took the time to contemplate every possible meaning of the phrase "benefit of the doubt," and I am pleased to report we will not be reconsidering our support for this well-written and necessary repeal.

- Jimmy Baca, Deputy Ambassador

Does this proposal do anything?

Yes, it repeals an ineffective resolution to make way for an effective one.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Vote NO on this repeal! REPEAL! That means to in theory destroy the ban on terrorism.

Vote NO on this repeal! REPEAL! That means to in theory destroy the ban on terrorism.

You can't destroy something that doesn't exist. The "ban" on terrorism you speak of is indeed theoretical, as the existing resolution is about as effective at stopping terrorists as an 85-year-old pensioner in a wheelchair with a whistle.

Please review the repeal and the proposed replacement (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=568863) for the resolution to be repealed. We hope you'll consider changing your vote after that.

The world would only be without an anti-terrorism law for a short time, until it's replacement can be passed.

Read the above post, The Altan Steppes provided a link to the Counterterrorism Act, which will be voted on as soon as the Prevention of Terrorism Resolution is repealed.

But hell, it doesn't matter, the votes for are shattering the votes against. A ratio of something like 4:1 last time I checked? It seems like the percentage of smart and educated voters in NationStates far exceeds that percentage in real life. What a shame... unless you're talking about NS.

-Gregg Nux

The world would only be without an anti-terrorism law for a short time, until it's replacement can be passed.

Read the above post, The Altan Steppes provided a link to the Counterterrorism Act, which will be voted on as soon as the Prevention of Terrorism Resolution is repealed.

But hell, it doesn't matter, the votes for are shattering the votes against. A ratio of something like 4:1 last time I checked? It seems like the percentage of smart and educated voters in NationStates far exceeds that percentage in real life. What a shame... unless you're talking about NS.

-Gregg Nux


Ambassador Nux what other real life is there? Or are you refering to the mythical "Real World" which is sometimes spoken of here?

Yours e.t.c., Mongkha, Khan of Kashgar, Ambassador for Urgench

The Empire of Zarquon Froods vote FOR, and will be awaiting it's replacement.

so even if they had a legitimate reason, you would allow them to reek havoc all over your country?

you should be advocating for peace and/or civil disobedience not violence.

Wachichi

If they had a legitimate reason and felt that strongly I'd do something about it. Yeah you should advocate peace. That's not what "the war against terror" is.

If people are "terrorizing" innocent citizens for a cause then they should be listened to, to make changes and be given minimum sentences or treat it like a war criminal.

If they had a legitimate reason and felt that strongly I'd do something about it. Yeah you should advocate peace. That's not what "the war against terror" is.

If people are "terrorizing" innocent citizens for a cause then they should be listened to, to make changes and be given minimum sentences or treat it like a war criminal.

Resorting to violence or terrorism, whatever your cause may be, makes you no better than your oppressors, or those who wrong you. There are other, and better, ways to achieve desired change or support a cause. Yes, those with grievances should be listened to and their desires addressed as much as possible. Once they actively seek to harm others, however, that is when they cross the line. As a nation that has felt the sting of terrorists entirely too often, the Altan Steppes simply doesn't buy the whole "it's okay to destroy, maim and murder as long as you have a righteous cause" line of argument.

Treating them as war criminals is not an option, as terrorism and war are not the same thing. As we've stated previously, we'd support legislation against war crimes or legislation addressing how state actors (i.e. nations) war against each other. That is well beyond the scope of counter-terrorism legislation, however.

-Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

At 5,660 votes for and 3,853 against the previous "Prevention" resolution, it makes no sense as to why it would be repealed with such fervor... my only legitimate guess that this is happening would be that you guys enjoy flipping your own decisions out of sheer joy, and there's nothing wrong with that as long as you keep it in game and out of real life decisions.

Anyway, to debate this repeal, I must say security is a big deal for a nation and it's straightforward that you must defend yourself against an attack. It should go without question that if a person shoots at your house and your family, you have every God given right to fire back. If you did nothing then you would be rolling over and letting your home be destroyed and letting your family and friends die.
You can't 'talk' it over with the attacker while he is firing at you. If you want to 'talk' it over then do so beforehand, and if you can't do that then there's most likely a bigger issue which you can't control and therefore must defend yourself and take up arms.

At 5,660 votes for and 3,853 against the previous "Prevention" resolution, it makes no sense as to why it would be repealed with such fervor... my only legitimate guess that this is happening would be that you guys enjoy flipping your own decisions out of sheer joy, and there's nothing wrong with that as long as you keep it in game and out of real life decisions.

I cannot speak for why the previous resolution passed (at least, not in a polite fashion, so I'll refrain). I attribute the strong support for the repeal to the fact that people are realizing that the previous resolution is all sound and no fury. It sounds pretty, but pretty doesn't stop terrorism.

Anyway, to debate this repeal, I must say security is a big deal for a nation and it's straightforward that you must defend yourself against an attack. It should go without question that if a person shoots at your house and your family, you have every God given right to fire back. If you did nothing then you would be rolling over and letting your home be destroyed and letting your family and friends die.
You can't 'talk' it over with the attacker while he is firing at you. If you want to 'talk' it over then do so beforehand, and if you can't do that then there's most likely a bigger issue which you can't control and therefore must defend yourself and take up arms.

As a representative of a nation whose military has extensive experience fighting terrorism and insurgency, I can promise you that we have no problem whatsoever with a nation defending itself. That's why we want to clear the dead wood out and repeal the old resolution so we can pass something that helps WA members really fight terrorism.

-Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

At 5,660 votes for and 3,853 against the previous "Prevention" resolution, it makes no sense as to why it would be repealed with such fervor... my only legitimate guess that this is happening would be that you guys enjoy flipping your own decisions out of sheer joy, and there's nothing wrong with that as long as you keep it in game and out of real life decisions.

Anyway, to debate this repeal, I must say security is a big deal for a nation and it's straightforward that you must defend yourself against an attack. It should go without question that if a person shoots at your house and your family, you have every God given right to fire back. If you did nothing then you would be rolling over and letting your home be destroyed and letting your family and friends die.
You can't 'talk' it over with the attacker while he is firing at you. If you want to 'talk' it over then do so beforehand, and if you can't do that then there's most likely a bigger issue which you can't control and therefore must defend yourself and take up arms.


In fact, honoured Ambassador, the resolution being repealed is utterly toothless and does nothing to assist the international community in fighting criminal violence of a political nature and indeed it may be argued that it impedes the membership of the w.a. from properly dealing with such acts.

The replacement being offered for approval very soon by the esteemed and respected delegation of the Altan Steppes is a immeasurable improvement which will actually assist w.a. member states in their attempts to keep intact their national security.

The repeal of the current faulty resolution is therefore vital and we urge all members of this organisation to vote for it.


Yours sincerely,

If they had a legitimate reason and felt that strongly I'd do something about it. Yeah you should advocate peace. That's not what "the war against terror" is.

If people are "terrorizing" innocent citizens for a cause then they should be listened to, to make changes and be given minimum sentences or treat it like a war criminal.

The good but unwholesome senator is sitting at his desk. A fragrant cloud of blue smoke is floating over the delegation. He is cheerfully puffing on a cigar, and humming the Marine Corps Hymn while field cleaning his Colt 1911a. beside him sits a very large tumbler of a carmel colored beverage. He pauses and places the cigar in his ashtray before speaking,
"As we say in the Palentine......bullshit. You do not negotiate with terrorists. You neutralize them. Pretty soon they realize that if they want to be heard, they must act like civilized human beings."

Vote NO on this repeal! REPEAL! That means to in theory destroy the ban on terrorism.

"Calm down, keep your pants on, and have a popsicle for crying out loud! It means to do more than 'in theory'. It means to get rid of this useless piece of crap, and replace it with a much better, and comprehensive resolution. You can read, I assume. The current Terrorist Ban is toothless and does nothing to stop terrorism."

Whilst what you say about the resorting to violence making you noe better than your oppressors is correct, when the alternative is getting murdered by the police and armed forces in your own home you can understand why people do feel the need to resort to such extreme means.

Furthermore, if there is no alternative available to them, do you honestly expect people to just lie down and submit to tyranny and murder?

The situation Emmbok is referring to has been resolved, and dialogue has been opened by all parties - but that would not have been achieved without one side resorting to arms against the oppressions of the other, supported by the state.

Whilst what you say about the resorting to violence making you noe better than your oppressors is correct, when the alternative is getting murdered by the police and armed forces in your own home you can understand why people do feel the need to resort to such extreme means.

Furthermore, if there is no alternative available to them, do you honestly expect people to just lie down and submit to tyranny and murder?

The situation Emmbok is referring to has been resolved, and dialogue has been opened by all parties - but that would not have been achieved without one side resorting to arms against the oppressions of the other, supported by the state.

Taking up arms against a repressive force is one thing; targeting civilians is quite another. This is why our proposed replacement for resolution #12 has the following definition:

A) DEFINES “terrorism” as the use of violence by non-state actors for the purpose of creating fear or terror, to achieve a social, political, or religious outcome, and either committed with deliberate disregard or specific targeting of civilians or non-combatants.

The police and armed forces that you cite in your example would not be civilians or non-combatants. Therefore, the example you cite would not be affected by our replacement. Our goal with the replacement is to give member states effective means to target those who indiscriminately target innocent people (civilians and non-combatants) in pursuit of their goals. Hopefully this will assuage your concerns.

-Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

If they had a legitimate reason and felt that strongly I'd do something about it. Yeah you should advocate peace. That's not what "the war against terror" is.

If people are "terrorizing" innocent citizens for a cause then they should be listened to, to make changes and be given minimum sentences or treat it like a war criminal.

first off, the War against Terror is a horribly lead "war". Physical fighting only creates more terrorists, therefore this "war" should be both physical and mental working to help the poor and all that to uplift the people. also, if people who terrorize the innocent are going to be heard now, then it will become a trend and the ONLY way for groups to be heard.

there will be a conception, that the only way for the government to hear us and talk to us is to blow some places up. then the government will talk to us. Your state only advocates for fighting and destruction.

there are many dictatorships, who oppress their people, however, we should rather die as peaceful warriors (quite the irony) than as violent ones.

Even if the group or person is killed, by the government, their ideals for which they died for would be much more respected and admired by all if they fought through peaceful means. Because it shows and peaceful fighting going up against the tyranical and violent empire.

People and groups may die, but ideas live on forever.

Wachichi

first off, the War against Terror is a horribly lead "war". Physical fighting only creates more terrorists, therefore this "war" should be both physical and mental working to help the poor and all that to uplift the people. also, if people who terrorize the innocent are going to be heard now, then it will become a trend and the ONLY way for groups to be heard.

there will be a conception, that the only way for the government to hear us and talk to us is to blow some places up. then the government will talk to us. Your state only advocates for fighting and destruction.

there are many dictatorships, who oppress their people, however, we should rather die as peaceful warriors (quite the irony) than as violent ones.

Even if the group or person is killed, by the government, their ideals for which they died for would be much more respected and admired by all if they fought through peaceful means. Because it shows and peaceful fighting going up against the tyranical and violent empire.

People and groups may die, but ideas live on forever.

Wachichi




Respected Ambassador which "War on Terror" is being referred to ? And who is leading it so Horribly? We are asking since the rest of your contribution makes eminent sense and we imagine you must be referring to something the honoured Ambassador for Emmbok said.

Yours e.t.c.

Resorting to violence or terrorism, whatever your cause may be, makes you no better than your oppressors, or those who wrong you. There are other, and better, ways to achieve desired change or support a cause. Yes, those with grievances should be listened to and their desires addressed as much as possible. Once they actively seek to harm others, however, that is when they cross the line. As a nation that has felt the sting of terrorists entirely too often, the Altan Steppes simply doesn't buy the whole "it's okay to destroy, maim and murder as long as you have a righteous cause" line of argument.

Treating them as war criminals is not an option, as terrorism and war are not the same thing. As we've stated previously, we'd support legislation against war crimes or legislation addressing how state actors (i.e. nations) war against each other. That is well beyond the scope of counter-terrorism legislation, however.

-Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

Taking up arms against a repressive force is one thing; targeting civilians is quite another. This is why our proposed replacement for resolution #12 has the following definition:



The police and armed forces that you cite in your example would not be civilians or non-combatants. Therefore, the example you cite would not be affected by our replacement. Our goal with the replacement is to give member states effective means to target those who indiscriminately target innocent people (civilians and non-combatants) in pursuit of their goals. Hopefully this will assuage your concerns.

-Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

It does leave me feeling better. However I am slightly concerned about the requirement that all actors be non state to be defined as terrorist. Presumably you woul see states acting in this manner in a different and equally reprehensible light?

yea, we debated that topic too, about whether we should limit terrorists to non-state actors, and we don't doubt that there are some or many nations that would use 'terrorism' or a terrorist group in order to change things in other nations, however, if we included a definition and laws concerning "terrorist states", then we would have a flurry of accusations against nations and their government of terrorism, further jeapordizing stability in a region, and the world.

the only reason we won't to repeal the "Prevention of Terrorism" is because of it's flaws, it can set the stage for more violence, so we are cautious to not set the language that could create more violence.

Wachichi

Come out ye Black and Tans and Fight me like a man.
When used correctly terrorists are great nationalists

(OOC: sorry for the delay, I've been without power for a couple of days as the house has been rewired!)

i would urge you to vote based on ideals and not on happenings.
Actions speak louder than words, ambassador. At Ambassador Krytellin's urging I've cast Gobbannium's vote for this repeal. However you should know that I won't be supporting any more Wachichian initiatives until and unless you can demonstrate to me that you aren't an over-enthusiastic, incredibly careless clot.

For clarity, I'm entirely aware that the replacement is an Altan initiative.

It does leave me feeling better. However I am slightly concerned about the requirement that all actors be non state to be defined as terrorist. Presumably you woul see states acting in this manner in a different and equally reprehensible light?
Can I gently suggest discussing this in the thread on the replacement? Just to avoid confusion, you understand.

Actions speak louder than words, ambassador. At Ambassador Krytellin's urging I've cast Gobbannium's vote for this repeal. However you should know that I won't be supporting any more Wachichian initiatives until and unless you can demonstrate to me that you aren't an over-enthusiastic, incredibly careless clot.

For clarity, I'm entirely aware that the replacement is an Altan initiative.

you fail to recognize that the only reason The Altan Steppes and myself met each other was because we were both working to repeal the legislation. so we combined our repeal to make the repeal currently up for vote. second, we decided to follow it up with a replacement. So we worked on and developed the WA Counterterrorism Act, (which will be introduced Sunday after the repeal). and though i can't thank the Altan Steppes more for his input and help on the subject, both the REPEAL and it's REPLACEMENT are initiatives from BOTH of us. each with the due credit.

now, we discussed the issue of his name on the repeal, and i've apologized many a times, personally, i don't care if you support any of my or anyone elses initiatives simply because of a mistake. I would hope you base your vote on your logic and not your pride or ignorance to the issues.

and if my enthusiasm has annoyed in any way, i must apologize because this is the first legislation i was putting forward that was to be successful, so hate my excitement or admire it, i couldn't care less.

Wachichi

i apologize to everyone else for moving so off topic however, i felt i needed to respond.

Wachichi

I believe that rather than repeal it, we should amend said proposal to be repealed.

At the end, the resolution states that a better resolution should be passed to prevent terrorism. What are the chances that such a resolution will be passed in the near future?

I believe that rather than repeal it, we should amend said proposal to be repealed.

You can't. Game rules indicate otherwise, as it is a tech issue.

At the end, the resolution states that a better resolution should be passed to prevent terrorism. What are the chances that such a resolution will be passed in the near future?

*cough* (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=568863)

okay, we can't edit a current proposal. we can repeal it and replace it.

as for it's replacement, it's already in the forums and has been debated and ammended for a long time. It's the WA Counterterrorism Resolution. it will be introduced for WA delegate approval on sunday, right after the repeal passes. if we get enough delegates to approve the measure it will go up for vote in the WA.

so the replacement is already finished and we have the final draft.

we are just waiting for the repeal to officially pass to get the replacement going.

Wachichi

you fail to recognize that the only reason The Altan Steppes and myself met each other was because we were both working to repeal the legislation.
I'm fully aware of that, being the person who pointed you at each other.

now, we discussed the issue of his name on the repeal, and i've apologized many a times, personally, i don't care if you support any of my or anyone elses initiatives simply because of a mistake. I would hope you base your vote on your logic and not your pride or ignorance to the issues.
The thing about mistakes is that you're supposed to learn from them. So far, far from convincing me that you've learned, you're going a long way to convincing me that you don't want to learn. That's not calculated to inspire confidence, you know.

all i'm saying is that it was a mistake and you considered it and ABOMONATION!

i meant no disrespect, and i will remember to list the co-author next time i propose legislation, but you seemed to blow it way out of proportion.

and thank you if you did introduce us.

Wachichi

I believe that rather than repeal it, we should amend said proposal to be repealed.

Read this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12817207&postcount=7).

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

all i'm saying is that it was a mistake and you considered it and ABOMONATION!

i meant no disrespect, and i will remember to list the co-author next time i propose legislation, but you seemed to blow it way out of proportion.I really have to agree on this point. You need to calm down, Gobby.

Your repeal just passed!

This resolution was horrible! It says it it self that the resolution is horrible and we need a better one. What's the point of that?

We wish to congratulate the delegations of the Altan Steppes and Wachichi for their success with this repeal. Their work on a replacement has been highly commendable and we look forward to supporting the results.

Yours sincerely,

all i'm saying is that it was a mistake and you considered it and ABOMONATION!
An abomination, please. And no, I don't. I consider it impolite, which is pretty basic, but you apologised in private and (eventually) in public so that's OK. What I do find worrying is that you don't seem to find this even mildly worrying.

i meant no disrespect, and i will remember to list the co-author next time i propose legislation, but you seemed to blow it way out of proportion.
Oh, trust me, I've barely got beyond "mildly irked" here, Ambassador. I haven't even tried to throw you out of the window. And if all you're taking away from this is "I will remember to list the co-author", then I'd suggest you need to slow down and think a little more deeply about it.

and thank you if you did introduce us.
You really don't want my opinion of you to improve, do you?

Still, congratulations on helping to get shot of a useless piece of legislation.

I sincerely thank everyone who helped to make this repeal happen. We have now submitted the replacement for approval by delegates. Let's work as hard to get it passed as we did to take its horrid predecessor out behind the barn and shoot it.

-Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

This resolution was horrible! It says it it self that the resolution is horrible and we need a better one. What's the point of that?

Passing the repeal allows a better one to be submitted, duh.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

I sincerely thank everyone who helped to make this repeal happen. We have now submitted the replacement for approval by delegates. Let's work as hard to get it passed as we did to take its horrid predecessor out behind the barn and shoot it.

-Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

The good but slightly unwholesome Senatoer finishes putting his Colt 1911a back together. He says,
"We don't need to go behind the barn. I can put it out of its misery, now."
<pulls back slide and cocks the large pistol>

"By the way, congrats on the repeal folks."