NationStates

You want to give that Communist a commendation?

Cobhanglica wrote:You want to give that Communist a commendation?

Please, don't bring that in here. Just don't.

Allrule wrote:

Cobhanglica wrote:You want to give that Communist a commendation?

Please, don't bring that in here. Just don't.

I'm sorry, but I despise that thing perhaps more than any other poster on here. If someone is going ask NSG what they think of commending him, I have to give my input.

Cobhanglica wrote:

Allrule wrote:Please, don't bring that in here. Just don't.

I'm sorry, but I despise that thing perhaps more than any other poster on here. If someone is going ask NSG what they think of commending him, I have to give my input.

I knew you were the most conservative of all NSG conservatives (NM got deleted, again), but I never knew you considered your opponents less than human. That's just pathetic.

Cannot think of a name wrote:

NERVUN wrote:Some raiders thought the same until they attempted an invasion of a region of a well known Generalite.

Man, that was awesome.

Do you have a link to that story?

Cobhanglica wrote:

Allrule wrote:Please, don't bring that in here. Just don't.

I'm sorry, but I despise that thing perhaps more than any other poster on here. If someone is going ask NSG what they think of commending him, I have to give my input.

Go away.

Allrule wrote:

Cobhanglica wrote:I'm sorry, but I despise that thing perhaps more than any other poster on here. If someone is going ask NSG what they think of commending him, I have to give my input.

I knew you were the most conservative of all NSG conservatives (NM got deleted, again), but I never knew you considered your opponents less than human. That's just pathetic.

I'd venture to say it's less than pathetic. Reminds me of VoteEarly.

Cobhanglica wrote:You want to give that Communist a commendation?

Really?

I don't think I've seen TCT post his economic views. Unless we're talking about someone else I'd really like to see where this has happened.

Barringtonia wrote:

The Cat-Tribe wrote:I may not be the right candidate..

..indeed, I am.

Your ego is over nine thousand!

United Dependencies wrote:

Cobhanglica wrote:You want to give that Communist a commendation?

Really?

I don't think I've seen TCT post his economic views. Unless we're talking about someone else I'd really like to see where this has happened.

I'm more referring to his social views, which tend to be in line with those views espoused by leftists. He supports unfettered immigration to the United States and opposes anything that could preserve our cultural traditions or national identity. Also, I recall him attempting to decry the right of individuals to freedom of association in a thread some time back.

Cobhanglica wrote:

United Dependencies wrote:Really?

I don't think I've seen TCT post his economic views. Unless we're talking about someone else I'd really like to see where this has happened.

I'm more referring to his social views, which tend to be in line with those views espoused by leftists. He supports unfettered immigration to the United States and opposes anything that could preserve our cultural traditions or national identity. Also, I recall him attempting to decry the right of individuals to freedom of association in a thread some time back.

Yes, he probably did express the opinion that discrimination is a bad thing and that laws against it are not unjust to people who discriminate.

Farnhamia wrote:

Cobhanglica wrote:
I'm more referring to his social views, which tend to be in line with those views espoused by leftists. He supports unfettered immigration to the United States and opposes anything that could preserve our cultural traditions or national identity. Also, I recall him attempting to decry the right of individuals to freedom of association in a thread some time back.

Yes, he probably did express the opinion that discrimination is a bad thing and that laws against it are not unjust to people who discriminate.

Quiet, you. That's enough of your "let the darkies have freedom" nonsense.

A quick break in the action for this

noun
1. ( initial capital letter ) a member of the Communist party or movement.
2. an advocate of communism.
3. a person who is regarded as supporting politically leftist or subversive causes.
4. ( usually initial capital letter ) a Communard.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/communist
wtf?
well I was about to say that definition of communist is wrong but apparently it acutally is semi-correct in the sense that you are using it.
Thought I will say that it would probably be more beneficial to use communist to denote a supporter of the economic system.

Cobhanglica wrote:

Allrule wrote:Please, don't bring that in here. Just don't.

I'm sorry, but I despise that thing perhaps more than any other poster on here. If someone is going ask NSG what they think of commending him, I have to give my input.

Seems to me that a person is a person, and deserves to be treated, respected and recognized as a person not an object or a 'thing' .. regardless of what political ideologies this person may harbor that you dislike. I would politely ask you to desist in (1) demeaning The Cat Tribe as an individual, (2) denying The Cat Tribe personhood.

I don't always agree with Cat Tribe, but I do always respect his skill as a debater and his thoroughness in sourcing his arguments. I think he's a little insane for putting so much effort into his posts, but I still admire him for it. NSG wouldn't be the same without him. If they are going to start commending Generalites, Cat Tribe is a reasonable choice.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go park my mobile gas chamber out of sight before you start handing out condemnations. Nothing to see here.

Cobhanglica wrote:

Allrule wrote:Please, don't bring that in here. Just don't.

I'm sorry, but I despise that thing perhaps more than any other poster on here. If someone is going ask NSG what they think of commending him, I have to give my input.

And I'm not happy with flamebaiting. We can accept one poster disliking another, we cannot accept refering to another poster as a thing. *** Warned for flamebaiting ***.

NERVUN wrote:

Cobhanglica wrote:I'm sorry, but I despise that thing perhaps more than any other poster on here. If someone is going ask NSG what they think of commending him, I have to give my input.

And I'm not happy with flamebaiting. We can accept one poster disliking another, we cannot accept refering to another poster as a thing. *** Warned for flamebaiting ***.

Ok, I won't refer to TCT as a thing. In order to conform to the rules of the site, I will refer to him as a human being. But, he will never get a shred of respect from me so long as he adheres to his ideology and continues to go to such lengths to defend it.

Hassett wrote:So does this mean we can condemn generalites too?

Commend and Condem is open to everyone assuming that A. The condemnation follows the rules. B. You can get enough votes for it.

Cobhanglica wrote:

NERVUN wrote:And I'm not happy with flamebaiting. We can accept one poster disliking another, we cannot accept refering to another poster as a thing. *** Warned for flamebaiting ***.

Ok, I won't refer to TCT as a thing. In order to conform to the rules of the site, I will refer to him as a human being. But, he will never get a shred of respect from me so long as he adheres to his ideology and continues to go to such lengths to defend it.

Which (flaming eschewed) I respect. I detest your views as I perceive them every bit as much as you detest my views as you perceive them, but I respect (to a degree) someone's devotion to a cause and ideology and persistence in defending one's viewpoint.

One minor detail. You are a self-identified White Nationalist who hates ones own "mixed-race heritage" and disagrees with even "liberal" Founders notions that "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Thus, we disagree vehemently on a wide variety of issues.

I am not, in constrast, even remotely a Communist. I am a Capitalist. I am not an advocate of laissez faire, libertarian, or anarcho-capitalism, but a firm capitalist. I am not even a Socialist -- although I believe in combining regulated capitalism with some social programs, programs for the common good, and aid for the poor.

I've never said I believe in "unfettered immigration." I have merely opposed draconian and unconstitutional laws like Arizona's SB-1070.

As for my supposedly opposing attempts to "preserve our cultural traditions or national identity," we simply disagree about what our "cultural traditions and national identity" are AND what are reasonable actions to preserve them. I think liberty and equal protection of the law are among the foremost and best of our traditions, as opposed to some idea of racial or WASP purity.

Finally, I firmly support the First Amendment's codification of the right to freedom of association. I have opposed attempts to twist and pervert this notion into the backwards idea that one has an absolute right to discriminate on the basis of race, gender, etc.

Anyway, I am sorry this topic got you warned. I disagree with you, but don't hold you in the contempt you apparently feel towards me.

P.S. I've got to stop even checking NSG or even this thread. When I do, I cant help posting!!!

The original debate thread for "Reduction of Abortion Act" has been lost to Jolt. However, I've been fishing around for a transcript (if you have one or know where you get one, please inform me). In my search for a transcript, I did however find a transcript of GA#44's FAQ which was written by The Cat-Tribe and included on the first page of the original debate thread (if my memory serves me correct). ^[1]

I have reformatted it for clarity, and hope the FAQ can serve as a helpful clarification of GA#44, this FAQ helped clarify quite a bit of misunderstandings when the resolution was originally adopted.

Frequently Asked Questions
Reduction of Abortion Act

Authored by The Cat-Tribe,
Formatted by Unibot,

1. Does this resolution address the legality or illegality of abortion, whether abortion is a right, or whether abortion is moral?
   
   No. The resolution is completely neutral on these issues. In fact, Clause 6 of the resolution states:
   
   6. DECLARES that nothing in this resolution shall affect the power of member states to declare abortion legal or illegal or to pass legislation extending or restricting access to abortion
   
   
   
   
2. Does this resolution harm the interests or rights of women?
   
   No. This resolution does not make abortion illegal, declare abortion immoral, or restrict any rights that women may have. To the contrary, it empowers women by providing the right to information about and increased access to (1) abstinence education, (2) adoption services, (3) contraceptives, (4) family planning services, (5) pre-natal, obstetric, and post-natal medical care, counseling, and services, (6) comprehensive sex education, and (7) education, awareness, prevention, and counseling programs to prevent rape and incest. The result is that women have increased control over becoming pregnant in the first place.
   
   
   
3. Does this resolution harm the interests or rights of the unborn?
   
   No. This resoution does not make abortion legal, declare abortion moral, or restrict any rights that the unborn may have. To the contrary, this resolution seeks to prevent destruction of the unborn by preventing unwanted pregnancies and other incentives for abortion. The resolution further seeks to remove barriers to childbirth, whether they be economic or medical.
   
   
   
4. Does this resolution significantly infringe national sovereignty?
   
   Not IMHO. Although the resolution does create a right in Clause 2 to access to information regarding abortion reduction services, the next two active clauses do not require nations to do anything -- they strongly urge and encourage actions by nations. Further Clause 5 gives some increased responsibility to the World Health Authority (WHA), but limits its provision of abortion reduction services to comply with national and local laws.
   
   
   
5. If it doesn't infringe national sovereignty, does this resolution do anything?
   
   Clause 2 of the resolution creates a right of all individuals to access information regarding abortion reduction services. This alone could significantly reduce unwanted pregnancies and remove incentives for abortion.
   
   I may be naive, but it is my hope that most nations will take seriously this topic and follow what Clauses 3 and 4 urge.
   
   Clause 5 empowers the WHA to help nations provide abortion reduction services, research relevant subjects, and facilitate the sharing of technology among member nations. Again, this should help reduce abortion rates.
   
   
   
   
6. I see the resolution refers to "abstinence education." What does this mean?
   
   Effective, comprehensive sex education is called for by the resolution. One aspect of such education can be an emphasis on abstinence as a means of avoiding unwanted pregnancies and other consequences of sex. This is NOT a call for "abstinence-only" programs that do nothing other than try to teach abstinence. Abstinence education as part of a broader range of information can be an effective part of preventing unwanted pregnancies and reducing abortion rates.
   
   
   
   
7. Why is this an international issue within the purview of the World Assembly?
   
   For those concerned with the plight of the unborn (even those that believe the unborn don't have rights), this resolution addresses an international problem of abortion without restricting any freedoms.
   
   For those concerned with the rights of women, this resolution addresses an international problem of unintended pregnancies and unnecessary medical procedures. It empowers women to make reproductive choices without coercion. Further, women die every year from unnecessary and unsafe abortions.¹
   
   The ability of the WHA to help nations share technology, conduct research, and provide universal access to abortion reduction services is unique and is a proper role for the World Assembly.
   
   ^1.OCC: In RL, some 700,000 women die each year from unsafe abortions. Although abortion can be a very safe procedure when legal but regulated, empowering women to avoid unnecessary medical procedures and make informed reproductive decisions is desirable.
   
   
   
   
8. The resolution refers to the World Health Authority. Isn't this a House of Cards violation of the rules? What happens if prior resolutions about the WHA are repealed?
   
   The rules for WA Proposals expressly says that "you may assign duties to an existing committee," such as the WHA. The rules further state that "[s]hould the Resolution that creates the committee be Repealed, the committee will continue to exist, but in a reduced capacity." World Assembly Resolution #31 creates the World Health Agency and WHA offices in member states.

NERVUN wrote:

Hassett wrote:So does this mean we can condemn generalites too?

Commend and Condem is open to everyone assuming that A. The condemnation follows the rules. B. You can get enough votes for it.

Condemnations for generalites will likely not pass the first test, though.

The Cat-Tribe wrote:P.S. I've got to stop even checking NSG or even this thread. When I do, I cant help posting!!!

You say you can't help posting as if that is a bad thing...

Nazi Flower Power wrote:

The Cat-Tribe wrote:P.S. I've got to stop even checking NSG or even this thread. When I do, I cant help posting!!!

You say you can't help posting as if that is a bad thing...

First sign of an addict, denying they have a problem..

..and so NFP posts away oblivious to her world falling apart around her, as though her very focus is a a willing desire to ignore her decaying surroundings.

I really need to write a book.

Ard just posted a transcript of the drafting thread for "Reduction of Abortion Act" .

EDIT: However, I'm still looking for a transcript of the debate thread if someone has one!

Unibot wrote:

NERVUN wrote:Commend and Condem is open to everyone assuming that A. The condemnation follows the rules. B. You can get enough votes for it.

Condemnations for generalites will likely not pass the first test, though.

Very likely, yes. Doesn't mean that someone CAN'T be creative and manage it though.