Advertisement
by Candlewhisper Archive » Mon Jul 18, 2016 9:41 am
by Christian Democrats » Mon Jul 18, 2016 11:35 am
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
by Omigodtheykilledkenny » Thu Jul 21, 2016 10:02 am
It's An Honor Just To Be Nominated! (Omigodtheykilledkenny; ed. Nation of Quebec)
The Issue
Since the news broke that corrupt party boss Tim A. Kneehall allegedly used his influence and cash to secure nominations to Parliament for more than a dozen of his closest friends, including both his wife and his favorite mistress, voters have been clamoring for a more open and transparent process to determine which candidates parties nominate for office.
The Debate
1. "What a clustershag," despairs powerless opposition backbencher @@RANDOMNAME@@, who somehow managed to sneak into your meeting. "I mean, even I have to admit, that mistress has a nice pair of 'assets' on her, but are they really qualifications for public office? This demonstrates more than ever the need to take power away from the establishment and the big donors and put it in the hands of the constituents. Let the parties hold open preliminary votes to decide who the nominees for office are. It's fair, it's transparent, it's democratic, and sure, parties may be stuck with a complete basketcase who doesn't know his behind from his elbow, but if it's what the people want, how could anyone possibly object?"
2. "That's a good start, but we have to make sure that voting is limited to members of our Party only," replies @@RANDOMNAME@@, a small town mayor who has jumped ship to national politics. "If we open things up to everyone, the Opposition could sneak in and plant their own candidates. Remember that blowhard nominee who turned out to be an East Lebatukese spy a few elections back? That was an embarrassment I think we'd all want to avoid again. It may mean losing the swing voters and independents, but we can't let anyone walk in and claim they uphold our values without being properly vetted."
3. "Don't be tempted by populism," warns a shadowy political advisor, speaking from a dark corner while closing the blinds in your office. "Primary elections are costly, they encourage a lot of unproductive infighting, and, frankly, they take too much power away from @@CAPITAL@@. There is a much simpler way to make nominations less corrupt, and that's to make sure every candidate who runs goes through a rigorous ideological purity test. That way the most loyal, and therefore most qualified, candidates are the ones nominated."
4. "I've got a much more classy idea!" declares @@MAJORINDUSTRY@@ mogul @@RANDOMNAME@@, while ogling all your interns. "Why waste our time with votes or vetoes, when we can force all candidates, even the men, to compete in a beauty pageant! It'll be a fabulous show, everyone will love it. Just imagine, a leading candidate breezes through the talent and interview portions, but gets blown away in the swimsuit competition! I know I'd want to watch! The best part is that it won't cost you a single @@CURRENCY@@! Just let me throw in a few ads for my company and products, and I'll pay for everything!"
by Candlewhisper Archive » Thu Jul 21, 2016 10:04 am
by Nation of Quebec » Thu Jul 21, 2016 2:10 pm
Issue #554: Welcome To --CENSORED-- (Nation of Quebec, ed. Candlewhisper Archive)
The Issue
A small town in Southern Nation of Quebec has a name so offensive that many official cartographers and government officials are refusing to acknowledge it. The debate has thrust --CENSORED-- into the spotlight, and many concerned citizens are asking the government to step in.
The Debate
"Well, I never!" gasps your easily offended Minister of Municipalities, dropping her monocle in surprise, directly into her champagne. "How this town ended up with such a dreadfully appalling name is beyond me. For all that is good and decent in @@REGION@@, I must ask you to change this town's name. Something functional and sensible like 'Pleasant-town' or 'Stepfjord' would have a much better ring to it. Then they can learn to behave like proper, civilised people."
"Now wait just a **** chicken *****ing minute!" exclaims @@RANDOMFIRSTNAME@@ '****hand' @@RANDOMSURNAME@@, the eccentric mayor of --CENSORED--. "The residents of our fine town are ****** happy with our name just the way it ****ing is! Our name is part of our heritage and you can't go around changing it just because some do-gooders find it offensive! We'll be keeping our name thank you very *******ing much and you prudes can **** right out of our ********ing business."
"Is plenty clear we need to reach a compromise, ya ken?" suggests @@RANDOMFIRSTNAME@@ MacDiarmid, a noted devolutionist who attends every public debate possible. "Seems like majority dinnae want that name appearin' on official maps and websites and suchlike, but guv-ment choosin' a spankin' noo name seems a wee bit too bossy, if yer see what I'm sayin' in the noo. Why not have yer provincial votes on yer town nomenclature like? Have any petition with a dram of signatures be triggerin' a referendum: then all the people can decide how settlements are named, y'ken? Granted there, there may be a-one or a-two grumpy locals fashin' themselves like wee bairns aboot it, but as me gran-da used to say, ye cannae please all of the people all of the time."
by Trotterdam » Thu Jul 21, 2016 2:41 pm
Ha, I recognize this reference.Nation of Quebec wrote:'Stepfjord'
by Australian rePublic » Thu Jul 21, 2016 3:39 pm
by Christian Democrats » Fri Jul 22, 2016 12:16 am
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
by Candlewhisper Archive » Fri Jul 22, 2016 1:11 am
by Australian rePublic » Fri Jul 22, 2016 2:26 am
by Gnejs » Fri Jul 22, 2016 2:26 am
by Australian rePublic » Fri Jul 22, 2016 2:29 am
Gnejs wrote:A fjord in the south of a nation isn't very remarkable though. I'm looking at one now, as a matter of fact. I thought your standard complaint was that issues assumed your nation was located in the northern hemisphere?
by Australian rePublic » Fri Jul 22, 2016 2:37 am
by Trotterdam » Fri Jul 22, 2016 11:17 pm
#556 Here Be Dragons?
The Issue
The discovery of an ancient map that says "Here Be Dragons" at an archaeological dig close to @@CAPITAL@@ has generated a storm of public interest, and a disturbingly high percentage of the population has indicated on a survey that they actually believe dragons exist.
The Debate
1. "Do we really have to go through this again?" sighs Education Minister @@RANDOMNAME@@, while reading through a woefully inaccurate high school history textbook. "The map was obviously just talking about lizards, or something. Dragons aren't real! If the people really are this credulous, then it's just a sign that we need to give the education budget another boost. Children and adults need to rein in daydreaming and flights of fancy, to concentrate on concrete reality."
2. "These callous depictions of dragons and demons are an affront to everything we believe in!" protests Religious Affairs Minister @@RANDOMNAME@@. "If anyone is to be blamed for @@NAME@@'s moral decay, then the fault is clearly with those godless fantasy authors and television producers, filling our young people's heads with rubbish and anti-religious propaganda. We must censor works like that hedonistic 'Play of Crowns' series so that they can't corrupt our children!"
3. "Okay, so dragons don't exist... yet," agrees Minister of Science and Technology @@RANDOMNAME@@, while poking a strange-looking animal with a cattle prod. "Although with recent advances in biological splicing, who knows? If you allotted a little extra in the budget for science, and eased up on some of those research restrictions, we could start creating all sorts of creatures in our labs. Maybe we could even try a field test of Prototype #42?"
4. "I'm not sure there's anything actually wrong with the public believing dragons exist," muses Minister of Whispers @@RANDOMNAME@@, while feeding a flock of little birds. "If you ask me, they've been getting a little uppity lately. Remember that protest last week, simply because you wanted to erect your statue in @@CAPITAL@@ Square? Let's start spreading rumours that you really do have dragons - a whole flight of them! They'll think twice about speaking out over the new tax bill then! Fire and blood!"
Issue by: Golgothastan
Editor: Nation of Quebec
by JohnnyandtheContusions » Sun Jul 24, 2016 9:34 am
by Trotterdam » Tue Jul 26, 2016 6:25 pm
"Why so glum when there's shopping to be done?" sings devoted consumer @@RANDOMNAME@@, sporting a lovely green velvet jacket. "Just cut sales taxes on luxury goods so everybody can shop their way out of misery! Your government is wasting money funding thinktanks and research groups of dubious value. You should cut the funding of SCAM and other analysts, and give me back my own @@CURRENCYPLURAL@@. The resulting spending spree will put a smile on my face AND boost the economy!"
by Frenequesta » Tue Jul 26, 2016 7:14 pm
3. "Ban this. Ban that. You cannot ban your way to an answer," intones Spruce Tree, a local martial artist and founder of Ay Kik Yu. "Our citizenry and our children must learn to properly defend themselves in this sort of situation if it should arise again. A mindful populace is a safe populace."
Trotterdam wrote:Additionally, I have observed "Yasmin" as a new first name, and "Pavlov", "Perez", and "Trudeau" as new last names.
by Trotterdam » Wed Jul 27, 2016 12:05 am
Just to be clear, does this mean that the former option 3 is now option 4? I would have expected this option to be added to the end, since all other options are banning one thing or another (guns or violent video games), so this option is an appropiate reponse.Frenequesta wrote:I discovered a new option for #20 "Gunman Kills Three," of all issues:3. "Ban this. Ban that. You cannot ban your way to an answer,"
Those two words go too well together to be a coincidence, and I suspect a reference to Bruce Lee.Frenequesta wrote:(I'm almost positive "Spruce Tree" is nonrandom.)
by Frenequesta » Wed Jul 27, 2016 12:29 am
Trotterdam wrote:Just to be clear, does this mean that the former option 3 is now option 4? I would have expected this option to be added to the end, since all other options are banning one thing or another (guns or violent video games), so this option is an appropiate reponse.Frenequesta wrote:I discovered a new option for #20 "Gunman Kills Three," of all issues:3. "Ban this. Ban that. You cannot ban your way to an answer,"
Or did you not receive the video game option for some reason such as having already banned them?
by Trotterdam » Thu Jul 28, 2016 11:17 am
by A Humanist Science » Thu Jul 28, 2016 11:34 am
The Issue
While you were conducting an operational inspection of a new @@DENONYMADJ@@ National Guard search and rescue helicopter, dispatch received a distress signal from a Personal Locator Beacon, a GPS-enhanced device wilderness adventurers use to request life-saving help. The helicopter immediately raced to the scene, setting down in a remote sun-baked meadow. Unfortunately, the distressed hiker refused rescue, saying "my stubbed toe is feeling better now."
The Debate
@@RANDOMNAME@@, a National Guard rescue operative, is exasperated. "This situation is intolerable, @@LEADER@@! In a genuine emergency, these beacons save lives. Now that they're so cheap, more and more people are using them as a crutch to attempt dangerous hikes they aren't prepared for. As you can see, we have to carry the huge risks and costs! Beacon users should have to register with the government, so we know who to fine for false alarms."
The helicopter crew patches an incoming call through to your headset. "Hello?" asks famed luxury safari hunter Beauregard Leopold Addington III, Esq. "You know, my friend's business makes satellite phones that can allow rescuers to contact hikers and assess the situation before calling out the cavalry. Sure, the service subscriptions are pricey, and your signa**SSHBZZZTPSSHFTZZPFT**ways get through, but mandatory sat-phones for hikers will reduce false alarms and are great for checking your stock portfolio from any summit!"
By this point, you've been standing in the sun for a while, and a mild heat stroke is setting in. Wait - is that bear wearing a tie? "You know, expensive fines and equipment will only discourage people seeking help when they really need it," says the bear while munching a stolen packet of Honey Burr-Berry cereal. "That'll cost lives too. The better solution is to increase funding to national parks, with safe trails, visitor centers, and campsites. Then the common @@DENONYMADJ@@ can enjoy @@NAME@@'s natural wonder without the corporations getting their grubby hands on it. It's smarter than the average policy!"
Author: A Humanist Science
Editor: Nation of Quebec
by Trotterdam » Thu Jul 28, 2016 11:52 am
His initials are "BLA". He likes talkingA Humanist Science wrote:Assuming "Beauregard Leopold Addington III, Esq." isnt a random name
by Pooshenland » Thu Jul 28, 2016 1:03 pm
Turning A Blind Eye?
The Issue
When a blind man and his guide Stewieodon were recently refused service in The Fortress restaurant 'The Haute Potato', it started a heated debate that few had seen coming.
The Debate
"This is a real eye-opener!" exclaims Mathias Murdock, head of the Pooshian Blind Trust, speaking to a large group of cane-wielding protesters. "This discrimination against the blind and partially-sighted has gone on for too long. Not only should we be allowed to take our companions and guardians wherever we go, now is the time to realize our vision of a society completely accessible for the visually impaired!"
"Stewieodons must be kept out of restaurants; why can't these people see that?" queries Björk Nagasawa, a young chef from 'The Haute Potato', reeking of paprika. "It's not that I don't understand, really, I do, but it's a health issue, you know. Imagine that thing entering the kitchen; you'd get their fur or scales or whathaveyou all over the buffet," she asserts confidently while her sweat trickles down into tonight's babaganuche. "He should just tie his Stewieodon outside along with any other mutt. They still have their canes, don't they?"
Your Stewieodon-walker, Lee Sparkle, who has 20/20 vision, rambles at you whilst untangling several leads. "Why are we only thinking of the blind here? I can't see why the blind should be able take their Stewieodons into restaurants, while my poor babies still have to be tied out in the rain. You'll let me take my Stewieodons into restaurants as well, right?"
Issue by: The Confederacy of The Aurora Archipelago
Editor: Gnejs
by A Humanist Science » Thu Jul 28, 2016 1:44 pm
by Christian Democrats » Fri Jul 29, 2016 2:03 am
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Lindsay
Advertisement