[Draft]Repeal of International Road Safety

[New Rockport]

I see.... I am sorry. I will take out that part, although I still will keep this repeal judging by the fact that governments cannot create any higher restrictions on international roads, cars, etc.

Governments can still enact more stringent safety standards than the ITSC's standards, so long as these standards apply equally to foreign and domestic motor carriers.

PROHIBITS governments in member states from requiring international commercial road vehicles and operators from other member states to meet higher safety standards than those required by the ITSC, unless those higher safety standards also apply to domestic motor carriers.

(emhpasis added)

[The St Timothy Isles]

I see.... I am sorry. I will take out that part, although I still will keep this repeal judging by the fact that governments cannot create any higher restrictions on international roads, cars, etc.

Governments can still enact more stringent safety standards than the ITSC's standards, so long as these standards apply equally to foreign and domestic motor carriers.

PROHIBITS governments in member states from requiring international commercial road vehicles and operators from other member states to meet higher safety standards than those required by the ITSC, unless those higher safety standards also apply to domestic motor carriers.

(emhpasis added)

What if it doesn't? It forces countries to change their laws to include the domestic motor carriers. That's wrong.

[Grays Harbor]

Because it does not state so specifically, does not mean that nations cannot do that.

The resolution does say so specifically here:

PROHIBITS governments in member states from requiring international commercial road vehicles and operators from other member states to meet higher safety standards than those required by the ITSC, unless those higher safety standards also apply to domestic motor carriers.

Nations are not lemmings who can only do as the WA specifically mandates.

That's why I am repealing this!
Side note: This argument in this forum makes our country go to DEEFCON 4

That last highlighted part knocks the wind out of your argument.

[The St Timothy Isles]

Because it does not state so specifically, does not mean that nations cannot do that.

The resolution does say so specifically here:

PROHIBITS governments in member states from requiring international commercial road vehicles and operators from other member states to meet higher safety standards than those required by the ITSC, unless those higher safety standards also apply to domestic motor carriers.

Nations are not lemmings who can only do as the WA specifically mandates.

That's why I am repealing this!
Side note: This argument in this forum makes our country go to DEEFCON 4

That last highlighted part knocks the wind out of your argument.

Again:

What if it doesn't? It forces countries to change their laws to include the domestic motor carriers. That's wrong.

[New Rockport]

I see.... I am sorry. I will take out that part, although I still will keep this repeal judging by the fact that governments cannot create any higher restrictions on international roads, cars, etc.

Governments can still enact more stringent safety standards than the ITSC's standards, so long as these standards apply equally to foreign and domestic motor carriers.

PROHIBITS governments in member states from requiring international commercial road vehicles and operators from other member states to meet higher safety standards than those required by the ITSC, unless those higher safety standards also apply to domestic motor carriers.

(emhpasis added)

What if it doesn't? It forces countries to change their laws to include the domestic motor carriers. That's wrong.

Governments that enact safety standards that apply only to foreign motor carriers are not really concerned about safety. They are using safety as a pretext to discriminate against those dang furriners.

[Grays Harbor]

Because it does not state so specifically, does not mean that nations cannot do that.

The resolution does say so specifically here:

PROHIBITS governments in member states from requiring international commercial road vehicles and operators from other member states to meet higher safety standards than those required by the ITSC, unless those higher safety standards also apply to domestic motor carriers.

Nations are not lemmings who can only do as the WA specifically mandates.

That's why I am repealing this!
Side note: This argument in this forum makes our country go to DEEFCON 4

That last highlighted part knocks the wind out of your argument.

Again:

What if it doesn't? It forces countries to change their laws to include the domestic motor carriers. That's wrong.

[The St Timothy Isles]

I see.... I am sorry. I will take out that part, although I still will keep this repeal judging by the fact that governments cannot create any higher restrictions on international roads, cars, etc.

Governments can still enact more stringent safety standards than the ITSC's standards, so long as these standards apply equally to foreign and domestic motor carriers.

PROHIBITS governments in member states from requiring international commercial road vehicles and operators from other member states to meet higher safety standards than those required by the ITSC, unless those higher safety standards also apply to domestic motor carriers.

(emhpasis added)

What if it doesn't? It forces countries to change their laws to include the domestic motor carriers. That's wrong.

Governments that enact safety standards that apply only to foreign motor carriers are not really concerned about safety. They are using safety as a pretext to discriminate against those dang furriners.

What you just said is true, but what about the people that do care? They are basically screwed because of this. That's even more wrong. I am all about equal treatment, so what about the equal treatment of governments instead of a "Tyranny by Majority" (sorry for the reference to a country type)? This is becoming a little too "Majority Rule".

[New Rockport]

Governments that enact safety standards that apply only to foreign motor carriers are not really concerned about safety. They are using safety as a pretext to discriminate against those dang furriners.

What you just said is true, but what about the people that do care?

They're xenophobes, and they should not have their prejudices codified into law under the guise of safety.

[The St Timothy Isles]

Governments that enact safety standards that apply only to foreign motor carriers are not really concerned about safety. They are using safety as a pretext to discriminate against those dang furriners.

What you just said is true, but what about the people that do care?

They're xenophobes, and they should not have their prejudices codified into law under the guise of safety.

What if the laws are mainly for terrorist protection?

[New Rockport]

Governments that enact safety standards that apply only to foreign motor carriers are not really concerned about safety. They are using safety as a pretext to discriminate against those dang furriners.

What you just said is true, but what about the people that do care?

They're xenophobes, and they should not have their prejudices codified into law under the guise of safety.

What if the laws are mainly for terrorist protection?

Then terrorists can easily get around them by renting a domestic truck rather than bringing a foreign truck over the border.

[The St Timothy Isles]

Governments that enact safety standards that apply only to foreign motor carriers are not really concerned about safety. They are using safety as a pretext to discriminate against those dang furriners.

What you just said is true, but what about the people that do care?

They're xenophobes, and they should not have their prejudices codified into law under the guise of safety.

What if the laws are mainly for terrorist protection?

Then terrorists can easily get around them by renting a domestic truck rather than bringing a foreign truck over the border.

Okay. I can't comeback that. Still, every country is equal and is it's own, and they should have their own foreign trade laws. This won't let them.

[The St Timothy Isles]

HAHAHA! NO COMEBACKS! BWAHAHAHA!

Seriously though, I would like tips, not negatives.

[Grays Harbor]

A thread full of virtually nothing but negatives ought tell you something.

[The St Timothy Isles]

A thread full of virtually nothing but negatives ought tell you something.

Yes. It tells me that you and New Rockport cannot see the pros, only the cons. Meaning to say, you guys are negative. Just give me tips.

[Lowell Leber]

A thread full of virtually nothing but negatives ought tell you something.

Yes. It tells me that you and New Rockport cannot see the pros, only the cons. Meaning to say, you guys are negative. Just give me tips.

To: The esteemed delegate from the nation of New Rockport.
From: Ms. B. Taylor, High Comm. for WA Affairs, The Armed Republic of Lowell Leber.

A tip that I offer to you in all seriousness is to drop this attempt to repeal a worthwhile resolution. As I stated in the debate while this resolution was at vote, its just roads for goodness sake.

With Regards,
Ms. B. Taylor

[The St Timothy Isles]

A thread full of virtually nothing but negatives ought tell you something.

Yes. It tells me that you and New Rockport cannot see the pros, only the cons. Meaning to say, you guys are negative. Just give me tips.

To: The esteemed delegate from the nation of New Rockport.
From: Ms. B. Taylor, High Comm. for WA Affairs, The Armed Republic of Lowell Leber.

A tip that I offer to you in all seriousness is to drop this attempt to repeal a worthwhile resolution. As I stated in the debate while this resolution was at vote, its just roads for goodness sake.

With Regards,
Ms. B. Taylor

Oh, and in the 9-11 attacks it was just a few buildings and planes for goodness sake.
PS: You mean "The esteemed delegate from the nation of The St. Timothy Isles."

[Grays Harbor]

A thread full of virtually nothing but negatives ought tell you something.

Yes. It tells me that you and New Rockport cannot see the pros, only the cons. Meaning to say, you guys are negative. Just give me tips.

If there were any "pros", we would see them. Now that leaves only the "cons", of which there are plenty. This is not a resolution which requires repealing, it was fullt debated, honed and is quite sufficient. Please explain why I or anybody else who is in favour of keeping this resolution contribute anything to something devoted to repealing what we believe is a worthwhile resolution?

Again, the fact that the negatives have thus far greatly outnumbered the positives, which as far as we can see is "zero", ought tell you that this is not something worth pursueing.

[The St Timothy Isles]

A thread full of virtually nothing but negatives ought tell you something.

Yes. It tells me that you and New Rockport cannot see the pros, only the cons. Meaning to say, you guys are negative. Just give me tips.

If there were any "pros", we would see them. Now that leaves only the "cons", of which there are plenty. This is not a resolution which requires repealing, it was fullt debated, honed and is quite sufficient. Please explain why I or anybody else who is in favour of keeping this resolution contribute anything to something devoted to repealing what we believe is a worthwhile resolution?

Again, the fact that the negatives have thus far greatly outnumbered the positives, which as far as we can see is "zero", ought tell you that this is not something worth pursueing.

Positives:
• It helps poor countries.
• Governments can pass its own higher laws on international roads and related infrastructure.

It's at two now!

[Grays Harbor]

A thread full of virtually nothing but negatives ought tell you something.

Yes. It tells me that you and New Rockport cannot see the pros, only the cons. Meaning to say, you guys are negative. Just give me tips.

If there were any "pros", we would see them. Now that leaves only the "cons", of which there are plenty. This is not a resolution which requires repealing, it was fullt debated, honed and is quite sufficient. Please explain why I or anybody else who is in favour of keeping this resolution contribute anything to something devoted to repealing what we believe is a worthwhile resolution?

Again, the fact that the negatives have thus far greatly outnumbered the positives, which as far as we can see is "zero", ought tell you that this is not something worth pursueing.

Positives:
• It helps poor countries.
• Governments can pass its own higher laws on international roads and related infrastructure.

It's at two now!

It has not been adequetly explained how it "helps" poor countries, other than excusing them from making improvements to shoddy infrastructure. Your solution to "helping" is to ignore the problem, and let it go because they are "poor". That is not a solution.

It has been pointed out that there is no impediment to passing stricter national laws, something you conveniently continue to ignore.

[The St Timothy Isles]

A thread full of virtually nothing but negatives ought tell you something.

Yes. It tells me that you and New Rockport cannot see the pros, only the cons. Meaning to say, you guys are negative. Just give me tips.

If there were any "pros", we would see them. Now that leaves only the "cons", of which there are plenty. This is not a resolution which requires repealing, it was fullt debated, honed and is quite sufficient. Please explain why I or anybody else who is in favour of keeping this resolution contribute anything to something devoted to repealing what we believe is a worthwhile resolution?

Again, the fact that the negatives have thus far greatly outnumbered the positives, which as far as we can see is "zero", ought tell you that this is not something worth pursueing.

Positives:
• It helps poor countries.
• Governments can pass its own higher laws on international roads and related infrastructure.

It's at two now!

It has not been adequetly explained how it "helps" poor countries, other than excusing them from making improvements to shoddy infrastructure. Your solution to "helping" is to ignore the problem, and let it go because they are "poor". That is not a solution.

It has been pointed out that there is no impediment to passing stricter national laws, something you conveniently continue to ignore.

It helps poor countries by taking away a committee that creates laws that only richer countries can abide with.
I'm ignoring it because it isn't true. Look here yet again:

PROHIBITS governments in member states from requiring international commercial road vehicles and operators from other member states to meet higher safety standards than those required by the ITSC, unless those higher safety standards also apply to domestic motor carriers.

Anything else?

[Krioval]

Positives:
• It helps poor countries.
• Governments can pass its own higher laws on international roads and related infrastructure.

It's at two now!

Actually, governments can already pass higher standards for their own roads. So you're down to one. Also, that one will need a lot more explanation before the Imperial Chiefdom is even remotely interested in supporting your draft effort.

Special Envoy Yuri-kan Sokolev
Imperial Chiefdom of Krioval

[Grays Harbor]

A thread full of virtually nothing but negatives ought tell you something.

Yes. It tells me that you and New Rockport cannot see the pros, only the cons. Meaning to say, you guys are negative. Just give me tips.

If there were any "pros", we would see them. Now that leaves only the "cons", of which there are plenty. This is not a resolution which requires repealing, it was fullt debated, honed and is quite sufficient. Please explain why I or anybody else who is in favour of keeping this resolution contribute anything to something devoted to repealing what we believe is a worthwhile resolution?

Again, the fact that the negatives have thus far greatly outnumbered the positives, which as far as we can see is "zero", ought tell you that this is not something worth pursueing.

Positives:
• It helps poor countries.
• Governments can pass its own higher laws on international roads and related infrastructure.

It's at two now!

It has not been adequetly explained how it "helps" poor countries, other than excusing them from making improvements to shoddy infrastructure. Your solution to "helping" is to ignore the problem, and let it go because they are "poor". That is not a solution.

It has been pointed out that there is no impediment to passing stricter national laws, something you conveniently continue to ignore.

It helps poor countries by taking away a committee that creates laws that only richer countries can abide with.
I'm ignoring it because it isn't true. Look here yet again:

PROHIBITS governments in member states from requiring international commercial road vehicles and operators from other member states to meet higher safety standards than those required by the ITSC, unless those higher safety standards also apply to domestic motor carriers.

Anything else?

Are you serious? You are using the same argument, which has already been debunked? I will go slow this time, so maybe you can understand... : unless ... those ... higher ... standards ... ALSO ... apply ... to ... domestic ... motor ... carriers ... meaning ... if ... the trucks ... of ... that ... country ... are ... held ... to ... a ... higher ... standard ... than ... so ... can ... non-domestic ... trucking. There now, was that so difficult?

You know, I am finished argueing this point with you, its like trying to reason with a parrot. You just repeat the same thing over and over again, no matter how many times and how many people point out the falacy of your arguments.

[The St Timothy Isles]

A thread full of virtually nothing but negatives ought tell you something.

Yes. It tells me that you and New Rockport cannot see the pros, only the cons. Meaning to say, you guys are negative. Just give me tips.

If there were any "pros", we would see them. Now that leaves only the "cons", of which there are plenty. This is not a resolution which requires repealing, it was fullt debated, honed and is quite sufficient. Please explain why I or anybody else who is in favour of keeping this resolution contribute anything to something devoted to repealing what we believe is a worthwhile resolution?

Again, the fact that the negatives have thus far greatly outnumbered the positives, which as far as we can see is "zero", ought tell you that this is not something worth pursueing.

Positives:
• It helps poor countries.
• Governments can pass its own higher laws on international roads and related infrastructure.

It's at two now!

It has not been adequetly explained how it "helps" poor countries, other than excusing them from making improvements to shoddy infrastructure. Your solution to "helping" is to ignore the problem, and let it go because they are "poor". That is not a solution.

It has been pointed out that there is no impediment to passing stricter national laws, something you conveniently continue to ignore.

It helps poor countries by taking away a committee that creates laws that only richer countries can abide with.
I'm ignoring it because it isn't true. Look here yet again:

PROHIBITS governments in member states from requiring international commercial road vehicles and operators from other member states to meet higher safety standards than those required by the ITSC, unless those higher safety standards also apply to domestic motor carriers.

Anything else?

Are you serious? You are using the same argument, which has already been debunked? I will go slow this time, so maybe you can understand... : unless ... those ... higher ... standards ... ALSO ... apply ... to ... domestic ... motor ... carriers ... meaning ... if ... the trucks ... of ... that ... country ... are ... held ... to ... a ... higher ... standard ... than ... so ... can ... non-domestic ... trucking. There now, was that so difficult?

You know, I am finished argueing this point with you, its like trying to reason with a parrot. You just repeat the same thing over and over again, no matter how many times and how many people point out the falacy of your arguments.

I give up with you.

You know, I am finished argueing this point with you, its like trying to reason with a parrot.

Ditto.

[The St Timothy Isles]

I ... Need ... Tips ... Now ... Please ... Or ... I ... Will ...

You don't want to know.

[Kryozerkia]

I ... Need ... Tips ... Now ... Please ... Or ... I ... Will ...

You don't want to know.

I recommend putting the most contemporary version of your draft in the first post that way the nice folks here don't have to search for it.