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: Combat Effectiveness Bill
Details
Submitted by[?]: Covenanters (IA)
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: February 2174
Description[?]:
| In order to reverse some of the damage done by the NPH wants to reform our military Act of 2169 this bill will ensure that front line combat units such as infantry, engineers, artillery forward observers, commandos and special forces are able to operate effectively by ensuring they are formed exclusively from heterosexual male personnel. This is for two main reasons. I The "lover in jeopardy" scenario. These types of units depend on a willingness of the soldiers to fight on while their comrades fall around them, administering first age after the objective is taken. Psychological tests and anecdotal evidence from countries that have experimented with mixed gender combat units suggest it is impossible for a human being to be trained to fight on while a lover is in jeopardy. Worse still an in-bred sense of chivalry usually prevent men from obeying such training when an attractive female comrade is injured. II Battlefield Procedure/Hard Routine. When operating close to or behind enemy lines there is little room for personal space in the kinds of units outlined above. This lack of personal space would be considered intrusive in any other walk of life with urinating, defecating, etc taking place in close proximity and battle buddies have to check each other's private areas for ticks, lice, bites, etc. These problems are simply eradicated by creating a single sex environment where all the men are known to be heterosexual. For the purpose of this bill homosexual "men" are classified as women. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Women in the military.
Old value:: Women serve alongside men.
Current: Women serve alongside men.
Proposed: Women can only serve in non-battle positions.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 21:03:18, January 11, 2006 CET | From | Free White Castle and The People Party | To | Debating the Combat Effectiveness Bill |
| Message | NPH loves the ladies so he says no. |
| Date | 04:09:56, January 12, 2006 CET | From | Luthori Green Party | To | Debating the Combat Effectiveness Bill |
| Message | If you love the ladies, would you be sending them into harms way? In my opinion, the RL law disallowing women to serve in combat positions is one of only three laws in the history of the world where men are the ones being descriminated against. The other two are that female prostitution are more likely to be allowed than male prostitution, and lesbians can generally have sex before gays. |
| Date | 04:35:33, January 12, 2006 CET | From | Social Calvinist Unionist Party | To | Debating the Combat Effectiveness Bill |
| Message | Everyone can fight for the Fatherland! Those who say otherwise with for the state to be weakened! Some women are much more patriotic than their male counterparts, yet you shant let them serve because they have bossoms? This is an outrage! |
| Date | 04:48:35, January 12, 2006 CET | From | Luthori Green Party | To | Debating the Combat Effectiveness Bill |
| Message | One s, not two. |
| Date | 18:58:42, January 12, 2006 CET | From | Social Calvinist Unionist Party | To | Debating the Combat Effectiveness Bill |
| Message | Pffft. You get the point. |
| Date | 19:53:00, January 12, 2006 CET | From | Free White Castle and The People Party | To | Debating the Combat Effectiveness Bill |
| Message | NPH loves the ladies enough that he is willing to give them options, he is not so patriarchal as to tell women what is or isn't good for them, he believe they are adults and can make decisions for themselves. So NPH does in fact love the ladies. |
| Date | 00:45:58, January 13, 2006 CET | From | Covenanters (IA) | To | Debating the Combat Effectiveness Bill |
| Message | Only a woman hating queer would vote against this. |
| Date | 04:05:23, January 13, 2006 CET | From | Social Calvinist Unionist Party | To | Debating the Combat Effectiveness Bill |
| Message | Well, for one, I am quite straight, and having seen nasty prejudices throughout the world, am not woman hating, so you're claim is false.- |
| Date | 07:06:07, January 13, 2006 CET | From | Free White Castle and The People Party | To | Debating the Combat Effectiveness Bill |
| Message | So you won't be voting for this bill DUP? Then why did you propose it? |
| Date | 07:07:21, January 13, 2006 CET | From | Free White Castle and The People Party | To | Debating the Combat Effectiveness Bill |
| Message | Is it just me or does the bill description seem to imply that the DUP would have some sexual temptation towards homosexuals? |
| Date | 07:14:35, January 13, 2006 CET | From | Free White Castle and The People Party | To | Debating the Combat Effectiveness Bill |
| Message | DUP says: "In order to reverse some of the damage done by the NPH wants to reform our military Act of 2169 this bill will segregate the real men into our front line combat units, away from any form of sexual temptation or distraction. For the purpose of this bill queers are to be categorised as women." Therefore it follows that: Women = Sexual temptation to the DUP Homosexuals = Women Thus Homosexuals = Sexual temptation to the DUP Now it all becomes clear. The DUP fears that he will not be able to resist the urge to cornhole his fellow soldiers and would become distracted. Yet another reason to exlude the DUP from the military. As much as I feel homosexuals should be allowed to serve, it appears that those in the DUP have low impulse control. We can't have the DUP going around and nailing everything that walks when they are supposed to be fighting. I feel we should limit the military to good upstanding homosexuals and exclude the depraved homo perverts of the DUP. |
| Date | 20:58:47, January 15, 2006 CET | From | Covenanters (IA) | To | Debating the Combat Effectiveness Bill |
| Message | Let's put this simply. In a front line infantry unit manned only by heterosexual men the soldiers will piss, shit and wash naked in each other's close proximity, even checking each other's arseholes for ticks, etc, without a second thought. If each man can't be sure his battle buddy is straight that all changes. That is what I meant by distraction, which I listed with temptation. I will re-write the bill at some point to avoid further confusion. |
| Date | 21:25:58, January 15, 2006 CET | From | Covenanters (IA) | To | Debating the Combat Effectiveness Bill |
| Message | I've run out of space with the new description. I'll finish it from a PC sometime and I'll add some line breaks as well. |
| Date | 05:50:37, January 16, 2006 CET | From | Free White Castle and The People Party | To | Debating the Combat Effectiveness Bill |
| Message | Hmmm, if my arsehole had to be inspected, please sign me up for a female inspector, or better yet loan me a shiny piece of metal and i will do it myself. But that is just the way I swing, I support the UDA's right to inspect as many men's arseholes as he wishes, so long as the other gentlemen consents. |
| Date | 08:07:15, January 16, 2006 CET | From | Free White Castle and The People Party | To | Debating the Combat Effectiveness Bill |
| Message | Oh and UDA I hate to be the one to tell you this, but when that guy told you he was inspecting your arsehole for ticks, ummm, well that was just a line to get your pants down and you bent over, I hope he was gentle. |
| Date | 09:05:45, January 16, 2006 CET | From | Covenanters (IA) | To | Debating the Combat Effectiveness Bill |
| Message | Actually the guys tend to be more shy about the female medics looking at their arses because they know they haven't had a bath for weeks or months and it's probably covered in spots and bits of shit stuck in the hair and stuff. Real men like to be at their best in female company. |
| Date | 09:18:03, January 16, 2006 CET | From | Luthori Green Party | To | Debating the Combat Effectiveness Bill |
| Message | And can we stop with the innuendo FWCatPP, it just makes you look homophobic. |
| Date | 10:02:09, January 16, 2006 CET | From | Free White Castle and The People Party | To | Debating the Combat Effectiveness Bill |
| Message | NPH is not homophobic. NPH loves the gay community. He is trying to ease the transition of the UDA's coming out. NPH also suggests that the UDA see a doctor about those spots on his ass. |
| Date | 10:05:11, January 16, 2006 CET | From | Covenanters (IA) | To | Debating the Combat Effectiveness Bill |
| Message | This behaviour is no less than infantile! |
| Date | 10:15:51, January 16, 2006 CET | From | Free White Castle and The People Party | To | Debating the Combat Effectiveness Bill |
| Message | See the problem is UDA is that I honestly have taken a dislike for you. You call yourself Christian while spreading a hateful message of intolerance and ignorance. Even in the context of roleplay I find you sickening. One of the reasons I hate the internet is because people like you say things you would never have the balls to say to a persons face. So I apologize for taking the occasional shot at you, I have a hard time restraining myself in the face of hateful ignorance. |
| Date | 13:32:34, January 19, 2006 CET | From | Covenanters (IA) | To | Debating the Combat Effectiveness Bill |
| Message | I have completed the final draft of this bill. Are any changes necessary before we put this to the vote? |
| Date | 10:28:19, January 21, 2006 CET | From | Covenanters (IA) | To | Debating the Combat Effectiveness Bill |
| Message | Why would the Rednecks be against this? |
| Date | 07:23:08, January 22, 2006 CET | From | Social Calvinist Unionist Party | To | Debating the Combat Effectiveness Bill |
| Message | I see that the FWCTPP is just one who follows the polls. Pity, I thought we actually had a free-thinking party here... |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 482 | ||||
| no | Total Seats: 193 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 75 |
| Random fact: Don't vote yes on a cabinet coalition that doesn't give you the power that you deserve. |
| Random quote: "A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic." - Josef Stalin |