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: Point of Consistency
Details
Submitted by[?]: Green Moderate Party
Status[?]: passed
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: November 2146
Description[?]:
| WHEREAS, our current position under the "Health" section law regarding "Listing of controversial ingredients (if food labelling is applied)" is "There is no requirement to disclose Gentically Modified ingredients, or chemicals used in agrigulture or processing," AND WHEREAS, even if my bill currently under debate passes, that position will change to "Any chemicals used in agrigulture or processing must be listed. There is no requirement to disclose GM ingredients," and the GM clause will remain unchanged, AND WHEREAS, our current position under the "Agriculture" section law regarding "The government's policy concerning Genetically Modified Crops" mandates the labeling of GM ingredients in food and is thus inconsistent, THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT, this latter law be changed to reflect the most recently expressed opinion of the legislature on the GM labeling issue, namely, that labeling not be required. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy concerning genetically modified (GM) crops.
Old value:: invalid choice
Current: Production and selling of GM crops is banned. Research is allowed.
Proposed: All activities related to production, selling or researching of GM crops are allowed.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 15:11:08, November 24, 2005 CET | From | Selucian Sovereignty Party | To | Debating the Point of Consistency |
| Message | Good call. I like this bill. |
| Date | 18:32:55, November 25, 2005 CET | From | Economic Development Party | To | Debating the Point of Consistency |
| Message | i disagree, if they don't mention what they are on the lable people who don't want to eat GM crops will have no way of telling wheather their food is GM or not. |
| Date | 18:49:02, November 25, 2005 CET | From | Selucian Sovereignty Party | To | Debating the Point of Consistency |
| Message | The alternative would be for those that are certain their food is NOT Genetically Modified to state on their label "No GM products are contained within this package". As stated in another debate, many foods in North America have already been contaminated to the point where it is impossible to say with any certainty whether a food is GM or not. Given this fact, i think this law is reasonable. It still allows those companies that are sure their food is GM-Free to list this on their label. That way, those who want GM free foods still will be able to find some. |
| Date | 21:00:19, November 25, 2005 CET | From | VBS Party | To | Debating the Point of Consistency |
| Message | We will hold our vote untill the cabinet proposal is voted... I hope SFP is eventually willing to change his vote too... |
| Date | 21:09:11, November 25, 2005 CET | From | Selucian Sovereignty Party | To | Debating the Point of Consistency |
| Message | Why would you change your vote based on a cabinet proposal? You either agree with the bill or don't agree with it. The Cabinet should have little to do with this issue, unless you're trying to hold a gun to GMP's head, threatening to vote against all his bills out of spite for him rebuffing your cabinet offer... |
| Date | 22:21:11, November 25, 2005 CET | From | VBS Party | To | Debating the Point of Consistency |
| Message | Of course I'm not holding a gun to his head. I don't really like the bill, to be honest, but I do want to show him my loyalty, and I want to show him I keep my word if I promise to help him with his green idears, even if they aren't the same as mine. |
| Date | 22:52:51, November 25, 2005 CET | From | Selucian Sovereignty Party | To | Debating the Point of Consistency |
| Message | So then answer the question. Are you in favour or opposed to the bill? Do you believe in it, or not? I believe in it, and I'm voting yes. I challenge you to do the same. |
| Date | 23:05:06, November 25, 2005 CET | From | VBS Party | To | Debating the Point of Consistency |
| Message | As I said: I'm against it, but I promised support for the things I don't like 100%, I gave him my word for it. As you should know when you've read the game tutorial, you should compromise. To compromise means you have to support something an other party really likes, and then he's got to support somethink you really like. It's not that hard to understand. (attempt 2 to try to explain something to ssp) |
| Date | 23:06:42, November 25, 2005 CET | From | Selucian Sovereignty Party | To | Debating the Point of Consistency |
| Message | So, what would you expect from GMP in exchange for your support on this bill? What kind of bills should he be supporting of yours? |
| Date | 23:18:41, November 25, 2005 CET | From | VBS Party | To | Debating the Point of Consistency |
| Message | As I said: the cabinet proposal. I believe he 's intelligent enough to know when a bill is good for Selucia or not. This means I think he will support most of our bills. (And that's 3, I hope you don't try to get the average up) |
| Date | 02:13:15, November 26, 2005 CET | From | Selucian Sovereignty Party | To | Debating the Point of Consistency |
| Message | I asked "what kind of bills". You failed to answer the question. Give us all examples of bills that he should pass. What about your anti-homosexual bills. Will he be expected to pass those? What about your bill trying to change the electoral system? what about your bills favouring the use of torture? What about all the bills you've previously proposed, and that he has voted against in the past? Will he be expected to support those? |
| Date | 20:54:04, November 26, 2005 CET | From | VBS Party | To | Debating the Point of Consistency |
| Message | @1: THE CABINET PROPOSAL. I believe when he follows his opinion on all bills, it's OK with me. I don't think a cabinet necessairly has to vote the same way on ALL bills @2: I believe when he follows his opinion on all bills, it's OK with me. |
| Date | 21:07:59, November 26, 2005 CET | From | Selucian Sovereignty Party | To | Debating the Point of Consistency |
| Message | If that is what you truly believe, and you don't care how others vote, then why do you always try to pursuade people to change their minds on bills that you support? I mean, if you don't care, then why bother ever contributing to the debate? Secondly, I disagree with your newly stated view that cabinets should be in complete disarray and have no common policy. A nation needs direction. Parties that have similar voting patterns send a signal to the electorate and the voters as to the direction of the nation. The signal that VBS proposes to send to the world now seems to be that "Chaos reign's supreme". I reject that notion. Thirdly, if you didn't care about how anyone else voted, then logically, your cabinet would have been VBS, SSP and SFP. Smallest number of parties with a majority, who could then vote against each other on every issue, grinding the wheels of government to a halt. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 319 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 256 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Particracy is set in the fictional world of Terra, which mirrors the real world of today and yet is not quite like it. |
| Random quote: "Politics is the entertainment industry for ugly people." - Mark Turpin |