Advertisement
by A mean old man » Fri May 07, 2010 9:18 pm
by Diatraba » Sat May 08, 2010 12:33 am
Denecaep wrote:Hallelujah!
by Diatraba » Sat May 08, 2010 12:36 am
by Ninthinia » Sat May 08, 2010 3:05 am
Inherentjoydom wrote:You are all peasants I severely doubt you even read the New York Times.
Canadai wrote:(is 'trollery' a word?).
I don't think so, but I assume that a moderator has the power to alter the universe and make it so.
New East Ireland wrote:I doubt that the grand army of three people in Guy Fawkes masks will be totally effective.
by Maul-5 » Sat May 08, 2010 8:18 am
by Grays Harbor » Sat May 08, 2010 10:02 am
by The Rich Port » Sat May 08, 2010 1:51 pm
Maul-5 wrote:There is a poorly written proposal to repeal this. It seems like it was written quickly, five minutes or less, and seems to deny that Great Nepal often lunches nukes.
- Jimmy Maullet, WAD
by A mean old man » Sat May 08, 2010 2:01 pm
by Satirius » Sat May 08, 2010 2:03 pm
instarepeal wrote:Council with recognition for it's other honorable acts.
by Tarsas » Sat May 08, 2010 2:14 pm
by Denecaep » Sat May 08, 2010 3:38 pm
RECOGNISING that child labour laws were active in Great Nepal BEFORE the WA voted against the proposition.
Mispellings, needs clearer explanation
NOTING that a member of Nation States has the right to choose how his government is run, from dictatorship to democracy.
True... but that wasn't the point.
COMENDING Great Nepal for putting safety of his citizens as a first priority.
Mispellings, and how is it that he gives his citizens safety? He kills little children.
REMINDING that Great Nepal has not ever launched a nuclear missle without provocation, if any for that matter.
Do I even need to say anything? This is absolutely false.
ASKING to ensure that internal affairs are recognized only by the nation.
You are missing the whole point of "Laws have been enacted in according to..."
WISHING to maintain the time honoured tradition of World Assembly neutrality and fairness to all nations regardless of government system.
It would be a good statement if it was in different context
HEREBY repeals "Repeal Great Nepal", to ensure safety and fairness of him and others to come.
by The Rich Port » Sat May 08, 2010 3:45 pm
by Western cuba » Sat May 08, 2010 3:48 pm
Maul-5 wrote:There is a poorly written proposal to repeal this. It seems like it was written quickly, five minutes or less, and seems to deny that Great Nepal often lunches nukes.
- Jimmy Maullet, WAD
by Gordonopia » Sat May 08, 2010 10:47 pm
by The Rich Port » Sat May 08, 2010 10:49 pm
Gordonopia wrote:I just voted for the repeal resolution. Great Nepal will be vindicated.
by Gordonopia » Sat May 08, 2010 10:50 pm
by The Rich Port » Sun May 09, 2010 12:31 am
Gordonopia wrote:
As a matter of fact, I am. I will always stand with nations that spread terror and EVIL throughout NationStates.
by Ninthinia » Sun May 09, 2010 12:35 am
Inherentjoydom wrote:You are all peasants I severely doubt you even read the New York Times.
Canadai wrote:(is 'trollery' a word?).
I don't think so, but I assume that a moderator has the power to alter the universe and make it so.
New East Ireland wrote:I doubt that the grand army of three people in Guy Fawkes masks will be totally effective.
by The Rich Port » Sun May 09, 2010 12:44 am
Ninthinia wrote:
No wonder only a speck of people like you in the real world exist. Thank God for peace.
by Maul-5 » Sun May 09, 2010 2:53 am
Western cuba wrote:Maul-5 wrote:There is a poorly written proposal to repeal this. It seems like it was written quickly, five minutes or less, and seems to deny that Great Nepal often lunches nukes.
- Jimmy Maullet, WAD
Great Nepal does not launch any nukes anymore. However they have done it in the past and have used nations as nuclear wastelands but thank god he stopped.
by Ninthinia » Sun May 09, 2010 3:04 am
Inherentjoydom wrote:You are all peasants I severely doubt you even read the New York Times.
Canadai wrote:(is 'trollery' a word?).
I don't think so, but I assume that a moderator has the power to alter the universe and make it so.
New East Ireland wrote:I doubt that the grand army of three people in Guy Fawkes masks will be totally effective.
by Maul-5 » Sun May 09, 2010 4:21 am
Ninthinia wrote:I find the repeal proposal absolutely preposterous, as its states that "All nations have the right to govern their own country in whichever way they see fit."
Now, I would like to bring up a point: "Then why does the condemning system even exist?"
by Ninthinia » Sun May 09, 2010 4:27 am
Maul-5 wrote:Ninthinia wrote:I find the repeal proposal absolutely preposterous, as its states that "All nations have the right to govern their own country in whichever way they see fit."
Now, I would like to bring up a point: "Then why does the condemning system even exist?"
More importantly, how does a condemn proposal infringe upon this right? As far as I can tell, a condemn is only an aesthetic symbol of "this nation isn't too nice" it does nothing to stats, nothing to stop a nation acting in any way it sees fit, a condemn is only a condemn. It does not mean a nation cannot act as it sees fit, a nation can act however it likes but it must be aware it can be condemned.
- Jimmy Maullet, pro-condemn of proper bad people
Inherentjoydom wrote:You are all peasants I severely doubt you even read the New York Times.
Canadai wrote:(is 'trollery' a word?).
I don't think so, but I assume that a moderator has the power to alter the universe and make it so.
New East Ireland wrote:I doubt that the grand army of three people in Guy Fawkes masks will be totally effective.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement