We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Give the People Liberty!
Details
Submitted by[?]: Greens Party of Rutania
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This bill is a resolution. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: May 2105
Description[?]:
| Assuming: that the sole purpose of a government is to pursue the interest of the people, to represent them and to safeguard their welfare, uphold the rule of law and provide them with essential services as dictated by their possession of inherent and inalienable rights Recognising: that this legislation is a test in the faith, honesty and sincerity of all parties in upholding this assumption and their commitment to the compromising needs of democracy, individual liberty, autonomy and welfare Recognising: that real liberty is placing their welfare into the hands of every citizen and that democracy ensures a utilitarian compromise between different interests resulting in the most agreeable compromise between the needs of the community and the needs of the individual Recognising: that a truly liberal citizenry should be free to decide how much they will earn, what they will produce, what they will consume and their conditions of employment without overarching government interference Concludes: that this legislation will place REAL and PRATICALE liberty in the hands of every citizen and free the government of a significant degree of burden from restraining the interests of capital and the interest of labour from undermining one another and regulating the behaviour and activities of a clique elite of Captains of Industry and the accompanying cronyism, corruption and callousness under of the current system |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 13:00:18, August 31, 2005 CET | From |  RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Give the People Liberty! |
| Message | I have mixed feelings about this... Perhaps an addendum saying that this only applies to companies with more than, lets say, 15 employees. I think this would be too impractical for every small grocery store or baker's shop. |
| Date | 13:42:54, August 31, 2005 CET | From | Greens Party of Rutania | To | Debating the Give the People Liberty! |
| Message | see the second sentence of the law, does not apply to "minor industries" however i agree it would be worth setting out numbers |
| Date | 13:51:35, August 31, 2005 CET | From | Freedom Party | To | Debating the Give the People Liberty! |
| Message | "Give the People Liberty!" HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA So you do this by nationalising industry and removing the peoples right to own companies and make money? Puhhhhlease!!!!!!! (Completely in character) |
| Date | 15:42:01, August 31, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Give the People Liberty! |
| Message | *the entire LIP party passes out in their seats* "I suppose we should take that as a nay from the LIP," says the speaker. |
| Date | 16:51:42, August 31, 2005 CET | From | Greens Party of Rutania | To | Debating the Give the People Liberty! |
| Message | The one Green Party delegate who hangs around inside the parliament couldn’t stop himself from giggling like a school girl at the site of the LIP collapsing. “Hmm, maybe I should have sub-titled it ‘Oh what the hell, can’t blame us for trying’ he muses.” We would request that the Freedom Party restrain themselves and to please listen to us clearly because we will answer each of the three points you make, slowly and clearly… One] “nationalising industry”. No, absolutely not. History has proven to us that mass nationalisation is neither an efficient policy nor one that promotes innovation and skills development. It lowers the dignity of workers by subjecting them to monotonous and creativity crushing labour. The Greens have never supported this kind of policy and if you re-read the legislation you see that it explicitly does not state that this is what’s to occur. Two] “removing the peoples right to own companies” People? Which people exactly are you thinking of? Everyone who works in those companies affected will become part-owners. Wether they own 51% of the public shares, become company board members of simply part of a shopfloor collective. There is a broad diversity of opportunities available under this legislation. This is the greatest and most practical democratisation of democracy we can offer the citizens of our nation. This is only socialism if you accept that capitalism cannot exist when workers are given self-control and who else has a greater interest in seeing the productivity and efficiency of industry then the people who will directly reap the benefit? Three] “make money” Again who has the biggest interest to see real wages rise? Workers And how does this occur? Improved productivity Therefore workers have the greatest interest of anybody to see that real productivity improves and promote wage rise. Wage rise as every good classical economist will know lifts consumption, increasing demand, promoting productivity, promoting wages and so on. This proposal is about improving wages, improving productivity and building a stronger economy. Which party wants to be counted as the obstacle to a new period of economic growth and greater job satisfaction? Who among you wanted to be branded an enemy to liberty for the people and an enemy to wage rises? We certainly don’t. By improving wage distribution according to how the workers believe is best will see a greater rise in consumer demand as has been monitored by demographers and economists across the world. Poorer people who become richer spend a greater proportion of their incomes then those who are already rich and become richer. This isn’t an assault on the market, on shareholders or the quality of life from some employees – keep in mind only SOME work places will be affected – and it’s certainly nothing as radical or violent as “class warfare”. This is an exciting and fresh approach to applying democracy to the workforce and seeing that the economy grows without the inherent exploitation under the current system. |
| Date | 16:53:54, August 31, 2005 CET | From | Greens Party of Rutania | To | Debating the Give the People Liberty! |
| Message | If i could get you to agree on the principle of the idea i would be happly to amend with concerns to appropriate wage distribution, exact numbers for the workplaces affected and the options available to workers ie: majority share ownership, shop floor collectives etc. We can make this work and we'll be remembered as the great names in the annals of our poeple's history. |
| Date | 17:50:00, August 31, 2005 CET | From | Civic Democratic Party | To | Debating the Give the People Liberty! |
| Message | (This is entirely in character) HOLY SHIT!!!! If you would excuse me while I take a drink of water, I seem rather nauseous. Okay alright. Thank you. Now I think it goes without questioning that the CDP is 100000000% against this and will NEVER EVER vote for this proposition. This would be nothing more than replacing capitalism with marxism and smacks of a government takeover of private industry. This piece of legislation does not belong in Rutania. |
| Date | 18:30:22, August 31, 2005 CET | From | Greens Party of Rutania | To | Debating the Give the People Liberty! |
| Message | This kind of thoughtless responce doesn't belong in the house of representatives. If you have something serious to say, something critical or something constructive we will be happy to respond and build upon what you say but all we are being given in empty rhetoric. |
| Date | 18:58:09, August 31, 2005 CET | From | Freedom Party | To | Debating the Give the People Liberty! |
| Message | There are no limits on what can and cant be said in the Federal Parliament (ooc: see the British one where heckling, joking, laughing etc are very common). Democratic worker councils will see toilet cleaners at McDonalds have a say in the running of the company and to run it. It will see the cleaner at a nuclear power plant having a say and running the whole plant. This proposal is ridiculous. "The commanding heights of the economy and major industry are owned and controlled by democratic workers councils." Not owned by people who set them up but by people who just work for them. Its nationalisation by the backdoor |
| Date | 19:29:27, August 31, 2005 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Give the People Liberty! |
| Message | "So you do this by nationalising industry and removing the peoples right to own companies and make money?" How is letting a democratic workers' council running a company nationalisation? The companies will not come under state-control. And the profits could be divided amongst the workers. It wouldn't be that different from a board of directors, as the workers' councils can still appoint a chief executive officer (who in most cases will make more money than the average worker). This proposal would in practice mean that the workers become shareholders. If they are shareholders, they will also be more motivated to do their work as they'll profit from doing so. |
| Date | 19:31:27, August 31, 2005 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Give the People Liberty! |
| Message | "This would be nothing more than replacing capitalism with marxism and smacks of a government takeover of private industry" The Government wouldn't take over anything, the companies would remain private, but the workers would effectively run the company, or appoint a chief executive officer to run it for them. It's like the current board of directors and shareholders system, only the rich fatcats who are members of the board of directors and who are the shareholders (because the average worker can't afford that) would be replaced with the people who actually work for the profit a company makes: the workers. |
| Date | 19:32:44, August 31, 2005 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Give the People Liberty! |
| Message | I even think it would be possible for a democratic workers' council to decide to attract investors from outside the company by offering them shares, thus not much would change, only that the profit would go to the people who deserve it. |
| Date | 19:50:18, August 31, 2005 CET | From | Greens Party of Rutania | To | Debating the Give the People Liberty! |
| Message | To the members of the Freedom Party Who built these companies literally, who absorbed the bulk of the capital raised and spent in building and operating these companies? The workers. So it’s hardly fair to say that they had nothing to do with the direction or success of our nations corporations and industries. Your argument is one that reeks of elitism, hardly a liberal ideal. Would you prohibit a cleaner at McDonalds from voting for your party, I’m sure you wouldn’t tell them so? What makes a cleaner less qualified to have a single vote at a local outlet to say about what’s best for their conditions of where they work then to have a single vote about how the nation is run? You need to engage your collective creativity to see the variety of ways that this system could work. No worker is seriously going to sabotage their opportunities for employment and no worker’s council is going to have the power or authority to tell a nuclear technician, a dentist or artist how to do their job. To use you analogue of the cleaner at the nuclear plant yes they will be able to have a say on how the entire plant is run, just like they can tell you as their representative how to run the entire nation but who do you think would carry more weight in such a debate in a nuclear facility? The cleaner or the engineers, the safety inspectors and the managers? You either assume workers are seriously retarded or simply malicious. This is absolutely not nationalisation by any other name or we would in no way support this legislation. These large corporations will remain “private” owned by workers and even shareholders, but not the government. So how could this be interpreted as a form of nationalisation? |
| Date | 20:02:47, August 31, 2005 CET | From | Freedom Party | To | Debating the Give the People Liberty! |
| Message | Because it is forcibly taking ownership away from the owners and transferring to to the 'people' If a worker is unhappy about his coniditions, he can quit and work for another company. Doesnt mean he should have a say as to whether the company buys stock from here or there. I am saying that workers have no right to run the company, they have a right to get paid for their labour and have a say in what they do. "Who built these companies literally, who absorbed the bulk of the capital raised and spent in building and operating these companies? The workers. So it’s hardly fair to say that they had nothing to do with the direction or success of our nations corporations and industries." The owners of the company built the company literally, they took the risk in setting it up and burdening the debt, they took the risk in trying to make profits. They employed people to help them, that is their service to society, employing people and paying them. The workers do not absorb the bulk of capital, they operate it or carry out the directives of the owner/s. They did have something to do with the success, that is right, and they GOT PAID TO DO IT! Your argument reeks of stupidity and a lack of understanding in fairness and economics. Quite frankly, its shit. |
| Date | 20:04:59, August 31, 2005 CET | From | Freedom Party | To | Debating the Give the People Liberty! |
| Message | "I even think it would be possible for a democratic workers' council to decide to attract investors from outside the company by offering them shares, thus not much would change, only that the profit would go to the people who deserve it." I dont expect the profits of my firm just because i work for them. I provide my labour and they pay me for it, thats what i deserve as that is what i offer. If i think i deserve more, i either, ask for a pay raise, or find another company that will pay me better. INvestors and shareholders take risks and invest THEIR MONEY in companies knowing that they MIGHT LOSE IT and that the company might NOT make a PROFIT! Therefore, if the company makes a profit, they DESERVE TO GET THEM!!! |
| Date | 20:35:34, August 31, 2005 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Give the People Liberty! |
| Message | "If a worker is unhappy about his coniditions, he can quit and work for another company. Doesnt mean he should have a say as to whether the company buys stock from here or there." No, he can't as in some regions unemployment is soaring and he would starve to death under the current capitalist policies. "The owners of the company built the company literally, they took the risk in setting it up and burdening the debt, they took the risk in trying to make profits. They employed people to help them, that is their service to society, employing people and paying them. The workers do not absorb the bulk of capital, they operate it or carry out the directives of the owner/s. They did have something to do with the success, that is right, and they GOT PAID TO DO IT!" But the workers are responsible in the end for the functioning of a company, they are the ones who make the big bucks, but they don't get one cent of the profit. Now that is not fair, is it? Who were it who worked their asses off trying to get a company up and running? The workers! They are the ones who are responsible for the success of a company! Yet a lazy bunch of rich fatcats get all the profit, while the workers don't even get one cent of the profit. "Your argument reeks of stupidity and a lack of understanding in fairness and economics. Quite frankly, its shit." Surely, if you need to resort to comments such as this, you have lost the debate in advance. |
| Date | 20:36:57, August 31, 2005 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Give the People Liberty! |
| Message | "INvestors and shareholders take risks and invest THEIR MONEY in companies knowing that they MIGHT LOSE IT and that the company might NOT make a PROFIT! Therefore, if the company makes a profit, they DESERVE TO GET THEM!!!" Workers take risks by joining a small, new company and work long hours for a small wage trying to get the company up and running, without the workers a company would not make a profit. Therefore, if the company makes a profit, those who worked to realise that profit deserve to get their share. |
| Date | 20:53:30, August 31, 2005 CET | From | Freedom Party | To | Debating the Give the People Liberty! |
| Message | RSDP. Your arguments are rubbish. You completely ignore the point i made about a person bearing the risk and setting up a company. Bill Gates took that risk and made billions, he wasnt a rich fatcat and worked hard to get his company running and profitable. Your characterising of every business owner as a lazy rich fatcat is demeaning, stupid and idiotic. Very wrong, and yet again, shit. Workers get paid for their labour, that is what they get. If they want they can start a company and take the risk, that is possible and happens all the time. A lot of people dont want to do that, they dont want the risk and are quite happy to work and get paid for it. They do not deserve and should not get the profits just because they work for them, they get paid for the labour they provide, that is the system and it is very fair. |
| Date | 20:56:00, August 31, 2005 CET | From | Freedom Party | To | Debating the Give the People Liberty! |
| Message | Workers get paid for their labour, if they work hard, they will get promoted and get more money. Or even be offered to become a partner/owner in the business. Companies usually run profit schemes or reward schemes within their company to benefit their employees. Workers take a risk in working for a small company? yes. But they dont have the fear of debt or having their house repossessed if the company goes bankrupt and has massive debts like the owners. |
| Date | 20:59:20, August 31, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Give the People Liberty! |
| Message | I would also like to note at this point that most major shareholders in Plcs are pension funds which will inevitably be distributed to people when they retire. People who run businesses work very hard and run very stark risks (9/10 businesses fail). Even if they become massive companies (and most of the successful ones stay as small or medium companies, or are sold to lagrer companies) then you're still never far away from disaster and that can leave MDs destitute or even in prison. THe notion that workers deserve to own something which they havent done anything to help above what they get paid for is frankly silly, unfair and unmeritocratic. |
| Date | 21:05:43, August 31, 2005 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Give the People Liberty! |
| Message | "You completely ignore the point i made about a person bearing the risk and setting up a company. Bill Gates took that risk and made billions, he wasnt a rich fatcat and worked hard to get his company running and profitable." And what about the persons who work for that new company who risk losing their jobs? Bill Gates indeed took risks, but so did his personel, the money he earned was earned on the backs of his employees. That does not mean I don't think that it is not great what the man has achieved, but all the money he earned, he earned because of the software that was developed by his employees. |
| Date | 22:00:00, August 31, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Give the People Liberty! |
| Message | If they lose their jobs they can just get new ones, and their reward is their SALARIES. If the owner goes out of business he goes bankrupt and he's left destitute. The owner takes a greater risk, COMES UP WITH THE WHOLE DIEA FOR THE BUSINESS IN THE FIRST PLACE and so deserves *his* reward - ie a higher salary. |
| Date | 22:04:18, August 31, 2005 CET | From | Freedom Party | To | Debating the Give the People Liberty! |
| Message | Ive been saying that for ages LIP but they refuse to listen or understand |
| Date | 22:10:33, August 31, 2005 CET | From | Freedom Party | To | Debating the Give the People Liberty! |
| Message | Not only this but no Social Democrat party can seriously support this legislation without actually being a socialist party and not a social democrat party. |
| Date | 23:16:48, August 31, 2005 CET | From | Civic Democratic Party | To | Debating the Give the People Liberty! |
| Message | "This kind of thoughtless responce doesn't belong in the house of representatives. If you have something serious to say, something critical or something constructive we will be happy to respond and build upon what you say but all we are being given in empty rhetoric." Excuse me sir but I can say whatever the hell I want in the Federal Parliament. But I guess you were talking about the House of Representatives which is a body that doesn't exist in Rutania. Maybe it does but the CDP is not a part of it and thus it doesn't matter what there rules are. You talk about us stating empty rhetoric. You're whole bill is nothing but empty socialist rhetoric as my coalition partners in the LIP and the Freedom Party have continued to say during this debate. The name of your bill for God's sake is "Give the People Liberty!". Why don't you just change it to "Give the Proletariat Liberty1" so it can sound really marxist. I would say something constructive but almost all of the plethora of reasons against this bill have been brought up by the Rt. Hon. delegates of the Freedom Party. OOC: Silly Americans. It's the Federal Pariliament not the House and we use British style rules of debating here not the boring old American ones. :P |
| Date | 23:31:01, August 31, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Give the People Liberty! |
| Message | [OOC: Well technically he is right... Parliament is called "the House" as in "The Houses of Parliament" mostly with reference to "the House of Commons". Did you know that in Parliament it's against to call people by their names or call someone a liar. It's weird. :blink:] |
| Date | 23:59:34, August 31, 2005 CET | From | Freedom Party | To | Debating the Give the People Liberty! |
| Message | Yeah but we operate a looser and more free speech kind of parliament. |
| Date | 10:18:57, September 01, 2005 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Give the People Liberty! |
| Message | "Not only this but no Social Democrat party can seriously support this legislation without actually being a socialist party and not a social democrat party." We believe that workers as a minimum should have a say in how the company is run. Installing a system of democratic workers' councils (in whith the management is also represented) is currently the only option, although it is, for us, not a real priority. There are many differences on this in our party on this issue as the social-democrats generally oppose this, whereas the democratic socialists (who currently have a small majority in the Party Council) generally support it. Our stance was determined by 23 votes to 21 and 1 abstention. |
| Date | 10:56:09, September 01, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Give the People Liberty! |
| Message | [Churchill]"From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, an iron curtain has descended across the RSDP."[/Churchill] |
| Date | 12:11:35, September 01, 2005 CET | From | Radical Freedom Party | To | Debating the Give the People Liberty! |
| Message | We oppose this legislation, quite obviously, but instead of yelling we will just stick with parliamentary decorum and give a quiet 'no thanks'. We believe in a social market economy. |
| Date | 12:49:31, September 01, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Give the People Liberty! |
| Message | Really? We prefer making arguments and debating to "giving it a quiet "no thanks"". Still, each to his own... |
| Date | 13:11:02, September 01, 2005 CET | From | Greens Party of Rutania | To | Debating the Give the People Liberty! |
| Message | OOC: this was from last night Our party refuses to justify standing up for what is right and defending the marginalised, the poor, the exploited, the oppressed and every voice of the meek and powerless kept silent by dogmatic rigidity and a refusal to bend with compassion, to spare a scrap of humane dignity or show any capacity for empathy. We will always represent those citizens that quest for democracy, for liberty, for equality and for fraternity and social justice. These are our defences against all those who seek to derail progress with pettiness, stupidity and envy. It should be beyond debate to anyone who witnesses the world around us that change is needed, change to empower the weak, change to provide for the poor and change to bring peace to the war-hungry. This is a Bill about giving workers what they deserve – power over themselves, power to improve their lives, power to make the nation they live in a better, fairer and more equitable one. Any refusal to secede this power from the elite to the majority is an argument steeped in ignorance; about the conditions faced by those on the receiving end of the current system, hatred for those who demand better and fear of those who want more from their lives. This argument has become one between the progressive and the regressive forces of our society, those who demand better and those that want to entrench us in mediocrity and an argument between democracy and liberty against injustice and oligarchy. The most fundamental question for economics is how to provide people with what they need and the best way to do so, beyond that everything is preference and ideology. This Bill provides the best way to produce what people need because it makes consumers, not CEOs the new captains of industry, it means real wage increases, real productivity and real economic stability against grossly imbalanced wages, artificial productivity rates and economic turbulence. |
| Date | 13:46:38, September 01, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Give the People Liberty! |
| Message | All this bill does is persecute the successful - those who deigned to take risks, come up with innovative ideas to make their lives better and those who had the willpower to bring those ideas to fruition - in favour of masses of mediocrity whose reward is already in evidence and if small is nothing but deserved. We will not succumb to vague and untrue moral blackmail and stoop to the level of the most tyrannus of regimes - denying people the ability to start their own enterprise and work themselves for a better life. To support this bill is to support the principle that people who gave nothing to a greater whole beyond what they are already paid for deserve to own and manage that whole, to the detriment of those intelligent and daring individuals who created it in the first place. If you believe that meritocracy means being handed the fruits of the success of others on a silver platter than you are most garvely mistaken my Rt Hon friend. This bill should find no favour with those who believe in a just reward for success, nor with those believe in basic human rights such as the right to property. Company founders are rich through their own success and hard work - because they lfited themselves about the mediocre masses. If you believe that those same masses deserve to be able to take the success of others for their own, then feel free to support this bill. |
| Date | 06:22:20, September 02, 2005 CET | From | Greens Party of Rutania | To | Debating the Give the People Liberty! |
| Message | OOC: I just want to make the point that of course I never expected this to pass but I thought it would be interesting to see the debate that arose and it has been very insightful. I think we’re reaching a good conclusion with both sides summarising nicely what they believe this Bill is about. If you’ll give me the privileges as the Bill proposer to have the final say… IC: This is not about punishing those who are successful. It is a Bill motivated by the fundamental desire to redistribute wealth in the name of fairness and on sound economic principles. Those fearsome “men of money” can only build there millionaire empires because they steal a little from the pockets of every worker by not returning the full and real value of the labour that workers provide. A dollar from this pocket, a fiver from that one and so on and so forth until a fortune is amassed. There is nothing stopping citizens from engaging in setting up their on enterprises and we believe that all former company owners should be reimbursed by a share buy-out by the workers to uphold our belief that everyone has the right to be compensated for their property. What this Bill represents is a fundamental return to the qualities of the enlightenment, liberty, equality and fraternity. This Bill is before us with the intention of returning power to the hands of those who really posses it, the people of our nation. We wouldn’t accept the argument that it’s acceptable for our nation to be run by an oligarchy simply because they had been brave enough to take the power, amass their assets or intimidate the people so why do we accept allowing a corporate oligarchy on the grounds that that they took the time to take other’s money and gamble it on the open market? OOC: oh how ironic, I can’t even vote for my own Bill! Harhar. |
| Date | 10:48:22, September 02, 2005 CET | From | Freedom Party | To | Debating the Give the People Liberty! |
| Message | [OOC: I would of let you had the last say apart from i completely disagree with what you said.] "It is a Bill motivated by the fundamental desire to redistribute wealth in the name of fairness and on sound economic principles." *When this was said in the house the representatives of the Freedom Party started laughing and heckling at such an absurd statement* *Finance Minister (economic), Tom Laird arose* This bill is not what the Greens say it is, we have clearly and logically stated why we oppose this absurd and restrictive bill and we believe the people will show us their support for our opposal to this. We have argued clearly and with great vigour that this bill has no sound economic principles behind at all and it dismays us that any party that is not a communist one can support this awful attempt to take away the control of business from its owners. |
| Date | 12:30:25, September 02, 2005 CET | From | Freedom Party | To | Debating the Give the People Liberty! |
| Message | "The moral justification of capitalism does not lie in the altruist claim that it represents the best way to achieve 'the common good.' It is true that capitalism does – if that catch-phrase has any meaning – but this is merely a secondary consequence. The moral justification for capitalism lies in the fact that it is the only system consonant with man's rational nature, that it protects man's survival qua man, and that its ruling principle is: justice." - Ayn Rand "Capitalism demands the best of every man – his rationality – and rewards him accordingly. It leaves every man free to choose the work he likes, to specialize in it, to trade his product for the products of others, and to go as far on the road of achievement as his ability and ambition will carry him." - Ayn Rand |
| Date | 15:47:06, September 02, 2005 CET | From | Conservative Party | To | Debating the Give the People Liberty! |
| Message | Anarcho-syndicalism then. This is getting voted down... |
| Date | 19:47:44, September 03, 2005 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Give the People Liberty! |
| Message | OOC: Damn, I didn't cast my vote. |
| Date | 16:56:45, September 05, 2005 CET | From | Greens Party of Rutania | To | Debating the Give the People Liberty! |
| Message | never, never, try and quote Ayn Rand if you want to maintain a scrap of dignity OOC: ;) |
| Date | 13:36:41, September 11, 2005 CET | From | Freedom Party | To | Debating the Give the People Liberty! |
| Message | I can quote whoever the fuck i want and those quotes were not only true but relevant to the debate |
| Date | 21:27:07, September 13, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Give the People Liberty! |
| Message | "never, never, try and quote Ayn Rand if you want to maintain a scrap of dignity OOC: ;)" Please back that statement up. Show how Rand isnt credible, rational, dignified, etc. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 118 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 424 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 207 |
| Random fact: It usually takes up to an hour for election results to generate. During this time, the "Next Election" date is put forward a month, which is confusing. Do not worry! In a short time, the election result will generate and the "Next Election" date will then correct itself. |
| Random quote: "Today's political campaigns function as collection agencies for broadcasters. You simply transfer money from contributors to television stations." - Bill Bradley |