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: National Liberty Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Union Party
Status[?]: passed
Votes: This bill proposes the withdrawal from a treaty. It will require half of the legislature to vote in favor[?]. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: April 2641
Description[?]:
| Freedom's march can not be stopped. Roll back the oppression! Roll back the tyranny! Vote yes on the repeal. |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 21:07:58, September 16, 2008 CET |
From | Mordusian Austrian Union | To | Debating the National Liberty Act | | Message | The FRP is so angry, and yet the UPJ is merely taking the FRP's own policy of not involving themselves in entangling foreign alliances to its logical conclusion. |
| Date | 00:45:11, September 17, 2008 CET |
From | Patriciate Imperial League (UCF) | To | Debating the National Liberty Act | | Message | Neither of these force legislation, or force us into war!!!! Treaties are NOT unconstitutional, treaties that force us into certain legislation or force us into military conflict ARE unconstitutional. The AAT and UCF are not unconstitutional. |
| Date | 12:40:38, September 17, 2008 CET |
From | Patriciate Imperial League (UCF) | To | Debating the National Liberty Act | | Message | I wouldn't have to use so many exclamation marks if the I didn't have to repeat the same argument over and over to the UJP. They seem unable to understand what is and is not constitutional.
1) It IS constitutional to have a treaty which does not enforce legislation.
2) It IS constitutional to have a treaty which does not enforce military action.
3) It is NOT constitutional to have a treaty which does enforce either of the legislation or military action.
4) It is NOT constitutional for a Head of Government to take control of the military.
Some day, people will learn what is and is not constitutional. Until then, I don't think something as trivial as my grammar should really be criticised, especially by a party that has made the phrase "NO U" famous. |
| Date | 23:44:48, September 17, 2008 CET |
From | Mordusian Austrian Union | To | Debating the National Liberty Act | | Message | The UMA shows how pathetically naive it is by using the "NO U" phrase against the Datakja Coalition. It is an immature response to immature and childish bills, showing that the bill in question should not be taken seriously. Multiple exclamation marks is the equivalent of a child stomping up and down and whining. |
| Date | 00:51:12, September 19, 2008 CET |
From | Mordusian Austrian Union | To | Debating the National Liberty Act | | Message | Our argument is the UCF's hypocrisy. The DC does not argue the constitutionality of these alliances. Instead, we merely wish to expose the sheer hypocrisy of them. The forbidding of Mordusia to enter into alliances was deliberately used to prevent the liberal parties from entering into treaties that would promote individualism, rather than obedience to the State. When the great MAU once entered a motion to express support for -- but not sign -- a treaty that was within the bounds of Mordusian mainstream ideology, it was struck down as an insult to the Republic and a cheap way at getting around the constitution. These alliances are no different, in principle. They are cheap ways of getting around the constitution. While they do not DEMAND aid, it is quite clear that aid is EXPECTED, or the agreement would not have been made. |
| Date | 03:18:43, September 19, 2008 CET |
From | Patriciate Imperial League (UCF) | To | Debating the National Liberty Act | | Message | Nothing at all is expected, except for improved diplomatic relations between our nation and our friends. The DC and UJP can argue all they like that the UCF does not stand for diplomacy, but the truth is that they do. This is proven by these fellowship treaties. It is the DC and UJP who don't like diplomacy, proven by this very proposal to abolish fellowship treaties. It is the DC and UJP who are being hypocritical. There is nothing at all enforced in this proposal, nothing at all expected, nothing at all demanded. They are merely a way of formalising the friendship between our nation and others.
OOC: Thankyou for actually giving an argument for once, and not just rambling on about grammar. |
| Date | 07:38:54, September 19, 2008 CET |
From | Mordusian Austrian Union | To | Debating the National Liberty Act | | Message | The DC is not against diplomacy, merely hypocrisy. The DC wishes only for consistency, which is, of course, impossible, as the State will twists its own laws to benefit whomever holds the power.
OOC: You're actually offended. I lol'd. |
| Date | 16:14:10, September 19, 2008 CET |
From | Mordusian Austrian Union | To | Debating the National Liberty Act | | Message | The FRP is constructing a straw man argument, a logical fallacy. The DC has stated repeatedly that it is not arguing the constitutionality of these treaties. We are merely pointing out the hypocrisy of the UCF, choosing to interpret the same article strictly or loosely, merely depending on who benefits. An interpretation of the law taking into account the PURPOSE AND SPIRIT of the law would see that these treaties ARE exploiting a loophole designed to effectively nullify the principle of the article, even if technically adhering to the letter. It was this interpretation of the constitutional article in question that the FRP was so heartily for when the advocacy of a certain treaty was proposed, when the exact wording of the article did not actually forbid such an action, but it did indeed violate the purpose and spirit of the law.
It is this inconsistency the DC argues against. Either allow all, or allow none. |
| Date | 23:42:17, September 19, 2008 CET |
From | Mordusian Austrian Union | To | Debating the National Liberty Act | | Message | Evidentally, it is, because you did not address the points in my argument, you made an empty soundbite. Try again. |
| Date | 16:06:30, September 21, 2008 CET |
From | Federal Republican Party (UCF) | To | Debating the National Liberty Act | | Message | There is noting to "try again", these treaties are legal. The DC and the UJP might want to withdraw from them for their own reasons but nothing is being twisted and no loopholes are being exploited, end of story. |
| Date | 20:42:29, September 21, 2008 CET |
From | Mordusian Austrian Union | To | Debating the National Liberty Act | | Message | OOC: XD Fair enough. ;)
______
Do the Assemblymen of the FRP understand what a "straw man" is, and realize that that is what they are doing? If not, let the DC educate them.
A "straw man argument" is a logical fallacy, in that you artificially construct an argument somewhat related, but not being made, and then proceed to knock it down in an attempt to discredit your opponent. This is what the FRP is doing. Rather than addressing the DC's arguments put forth demonstrating the FRP's hypocrisy, they instead choose to argue the legality of the treaties, which is NOT WHAT THE ARGUMENT PUT FORTH IS ABOUT. |
subscribe to this discussion -
unsubscribeVoting
| Vote |
Seats |
| yes | Total Seats: 106 |
| no | Total Seats: 89 |
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: In Culturally Protected nations, it is the responsibility of players to ensure the candidate boxes on their Party Overview screens are filled in with appropriate names. If a player is allotted seats in a Cabinet bill and has not filled in names for the relevant candidate position, then the program will automatically fill in the positions with names which might not necessarily be appropriate for the Cultural Protocols. |
| Random quote: "The streets are safe in Philadelphia, it's only the people who make them unsafe." - Frank Rizzo |