Advertisement
by Greater Amerigo » Tue Oct 27, 2009 9:41 pm
by WallachIX » Tue Oct 27, 2009 11:13 pm
Borinata wrote:REQUIRES that the monument be made government property and that it can not be owned by a private party.
So a monument, say a religious building (OOC:the Vatican, Angkor Wat), has to be ceded to the government to qualify as a monument? While it is certainly true that whoever owns it doesn't have to seek monument status for the building; however this unfairly and unnecessarily discourages private maintenance, ownership and promotion of site of historic and cultural interest.
AGAINST
by Glitternisons » Wed Oct 28, 2009 4:47 am
by Rutianas » Wed Oct 28, 2009 4:54 am
Glitternisons wrote:Also, why can't they be owned by private groups? Does that mean that family manors etc that fit the criteria for ancient monuments can be taken from them?
by Philimbesi » Wed Oct 28, 2009 5:08 am
a repeal is in the works
by Garglers » Wed Oct 28, 2009 6:07 am
by Philimbesi » Wed Oct 28, 2009 6:10 am
This small, but significant piece of legislature is enough for me to relay my suggestion that our proud nation resign from the WA should it be passed
by Serrland » Wed Oct 28, 2009 6:29 am
by Grays Harbor » Wed Oct 28, 2009 6:43 am
Serrland wrote:Serrland's greatest national monument is an 1800 year old monastery. While Serrland did vote in favour of this resolution, it does have concerns about whether or not the monks will still be allowed to reside within the monastery if it passes.
by Gop-Conservatives » Wed Oct 28, 2009 7:51 am
Serrland wrote:Serrland's greatest national monument is an 1800 year old monastery. While Serrland did vote in favour of this resolution, it does have concerns about whether or not the monks will still be allowed to reside within the monastery if it passes.
by Arncliff » Wed Oct 28, 2009 8:56 am
by Philimbesi » Wed Oct 28, 2009 9:41 am
by Baranthar » Wed Oct 28, 2009 9:47 am
I trust you shall refrain from submitting the repeal until this current resolution has actually been cast? Let's follow proper procedures, for once.Philimbesi wrote:I rise to inform the body that the Honorable Ambassador from Grays Harbor and I have completed a repeal for this resolution and should the current trend towards passage continue the ambassador will submit this repeal forthwith. We will however refrain from discussing the specifics at this time.
I call upon all those who have voiced opposition to this drivel to please inform your delegates at the proper time.
Nigel S Youlikin
USP WA Ambassador
by Grays Harbor » Wed Oct 28, 2009 9:56 am
Baranthar wrote:I trust you shall refrain from submitting the repeal until this current resolution has actually been cast? Let's follow proper procedures, for once.Philimbesi wrote:I rise to inform the body that the Honorable Ambassador from Grays Harbor and I have completed a repeal for this resolution and should the current trend towards passage continue the ambassador will submit this repeal forthwith. We will however refrain from discussing the specifics at this time.
I call upon all those who have voiced opposition to this drivel to please inform your delegates at the proper time.
Nigel S Youlikin
USP WA Ambassador
by Philimbesi » Wed Oct 28, 2009 10:18 am
by Flibbleites » Wed Oct 28, 2009 10:54 am
Grays Harbor wrote:Baranthar wrote:I trust you shall refrain from submitting the repeal until this current resolution has actually been cast? Let's follow proper procedures, for once.Philimbesi wrote:I rise to inform the body that the Honorable Ambassador from Grays Harbor and I have completed a repeal for this resolution and should the current trend towards passage continue the ambassador will submit this repeal forthwith. We will however refrain from discussing the specifics at this time.
I call upon all those who have voiced opposition to this drivel to please inform your delegates at the proper time.
Nigel S Youlikin
USP WA Ambassador
By definition, repeals cannot be proposed until an issue is actually passed.
by Scott Tree » Wed Oct 28, 2009 11:04 am
by Flibbleites » Wed Oct 28, 2009 11:07 am
The WA isn't taking anything.Scott Tree wrote:Our nation refuses to give the World assembly any historical site inside Scott Tree. To enforce this we will have to invade us.
Scott Tree wrote:This document is illegal and should be stricken from the World Assembly chatter.
by Bears Armed » Wed Oct 28, 2009 11:09 am
Scott Tree wrote:This document is illegal and should be stricken from the World Assembly chatter.
by Scott Tree » Wed Oct 28, 2009 11:16 am
by Philimbesi » Wed Oct 28, 2009 11:32 am
by Felixburgh » Wed Oct 28, 2009 3:22 pm
by Tyranteous » Wed Oct 28, 2009 3:32 pm
by Pai Lei » Wed Oct 28, 2009 4:39 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement