Main | About | Tutorial | FAQ | Links | Wiki | Forum | World News | World Map | World Ranking | Nations | Electoral Calendar | Party Organizations | Treaties |
Login | Register |
Game Time: November 5573
Next month in: 03:16:01
Server time: 00:43:58, November 25, 2024 CET
Currently online (0): Record: 63 on 23:13:00, July 26, 2019 CET

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: Ecology Act

Details

Submitted by[?]: Revolutionary Party

Status[?]: defeated

Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.

Voting deadline: May 2732

Description[?]:

Let's save our ecosystem

Proposals

Debate

These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:

Date20:49:42, March 26, 2009 CET
FromLog Cabin Republicans
ToDebating the Ecology Act
MessageMr. Speaker,

Why?

Yield.

Date21:27:39, March 26, 2009 CET
FromEvangelium Vitae Party
ToDebating the Ecology Act
MessageMr. Speaker:

What if the Jildrath whale population become over burdening on the ecosystem? Is preventing whaling hurting the ecosystem?

Yield

Date21:33:46, March 26, 2009 CET
FromRevolutionary Party
ToDebating the Ecology Act
MessageAnd why not?

anyway.

1) To reduce pollution, of course. If people travel collective less fuel is consumed than if everyone uses car, and less pollution is created. And I think this is not bad.

2) Whales are on the way to extinction. Well, I think nothing more is required to be said.

3) Well, recycling unbiodegradable [dunno if this word exists in english, sorry, but I don't know other ways to say it] objects reduces pollution, also [another time: don't know if I'm using the right word]. And to create a cycle of recycling, sorry for the pun, means more employment.

Date22:47:02, March 26, 2009 CET
FromFreedom Party
ToDebating the Ecology Act
MessageMr. Speaker,

The assumption that the Rev Party makes concerning the efficiency of the gov't in terms of pollution is rather un-explained. It is merely that, an assumption. We believe the people should have the freedom to decide for themselves on a daily basis what kind of recycling and pollution are in the oeconomy.

Yield

Date15:32:16, March 27, 2009 CET
FromRevolutionary Party
ToDebating the Ecology Act
MessageHonorable member of FP, just let me know where I said about measuring the efficency of government in terms of pollution.
I don't remember to have said it.

Secondarlily, I don't see the world "compulsory" in any part of this law; the only thing that this law makes compulsory is not to fish whales.

Date18:37:09, March 27, 2009 CET
FromEvangelium Vitae Party
ToDebating the Ecology Act
MessageMr. Speaker:

One does not fish whales, one whales whales.

I yield the floor.

Date18:43:15, March 27, 2009 CET
FromFreedom Party
ToDebating the Ecology Act
Message"The government funds recycling facilities for public use."

We believe the private sector is more efficient than the gov't at this.

We all know that "encouraging" mass transit use eventually results in coercion of the use of mass transit... slippery slope... LET THE PEOPLE BE FREE!!!!!!!!

yield

subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe

Voting

Vote Seats
yes
 

Total Seats: 12

no
      

Total Seats: 56

abstain
 

Total Seats: 7


Random fact: Players are expected to play the game independently and should not share their passwords or allow others to access their accounts.

Random quote: "The reason there are so few female politicians is that it is too much trouble to put makeup on two faces." - Maureen Murphy

This page was generated with PHP
Copyright 2004-2010 Wouter Lievens
Queries performed: 73