NSG Senate Coffee Shop [NSG Senate]

[Fulflood]

That's not how business works. It looks legit on paper, but that makes no sense in practice.

1) You're pretty much implying that you're the largest conglomerate in the world, which is a huge godmod.
2) Even if you did control a network of factories as large as those companies have *cough* unrealistic numberwank *cough*, you'd have a unified management style, that affects the amount of revenue. Plus, you can't just decide example Walmart + Microsoft = 400bn for example, because that makes no economic sense. Business isn't just "oh, Company A + Enterprise B = 100bn". It's like saying wondering the GDP of North Korea if it was under American control. You can't because the management is completely different.

And the difference between creating a new fictional country out of thin air that is now in the G8 and creating a fictional firm that is in and around the top 8 firms depending on the different measures used is?

We're not in the G8 and are probably the 12-15th largest economy in the world. You propose being far larger than the largest company in the world.

[Free South Califas]

Sorry for not getting to the sponsor updates, Internet has been REALLY slow the past day, and I mean like dial up slow.

I'm currently trawling all the Senate pages and compiling a new sponsor list.

I have major issues with points 2 and 3, which now that I think about it, could simply be remade into a repeal argument if you're only interested in hearing from people who uncritically support your current draft. 'Twould be a shame, as I'm highly interested in securing internet freedom and in passing the rest of the bill. One of my objections involved the possibility of US-style government overreach which would pretty well undermine any reliably substantial 'freedom' of law-abiding citizens from, say, political harrassment at the hands of an FBI-like agency. While I'm sure the current Senate has no intention of violating its citizens' privacy, I'm inclined to regulate the ability of the future bureaucracy to go on fishing expeditions and end up mapping out entire political and subcultural networks.

Classic canard, top work sir. Regardless, if you want a bill to be acceptable, it should be nondiscriminatory.

If you think that "Chairman" is discriminatory, you need to kindly get the fuck out of politics and go back to your commune. It is a title, and has no gender. We are all men, even the women are men.

As a linguist I'm quite positive you don't know what you're talking about. Take morphology, or if we're going to get personal, perhaps just stay in your little corner of politics, where we all get to have a good laugh at your childish ambitions and your reactions to the criticism you bring on yourself.

[Costa Alegria]

Classic canard, top work sir. Regardless, if you want a bill to be acceptable, it should be nondiscriminatory.

I've drafted two bills so far that people have deemed acceptable and passed into law, regardless of the language used. Now, whilst you're here, do something constructive and quit this psuedo-intellectually elitist attitude and obstructiveness you have towards other posters. It's annoying and quite frankly, pathetic. We're all equal here so don't go around pretending that some animals are more equal than others.

[Free South Califas]

Classic canard, top work sir. Regardless, if you want a bill to be acceptable, it should be nondiscriminatory.

I've drafted two bills so far that people have deemed acceptable and passed into law, regardless of the language used.

I was stating my (or a random non-sexist person's) requirements. If that language was discriminatory, your supporters were and are wrong. (Of course, I mean against arbitrary groups, not, say, discriminating against people who can't lift 50 lb for a job requiring it).

Now, whilst you're here, do something constructive

I'm doing my best. Stop being such an obstructionist if you care so much. By the way, I've drafted several bills including three that are currently on the queue, three economics bills that are waiting until after the EDA (which I've co-authored), and I've made substantial progress on a local government bill from scratch. I've also used my platform to advocate for the people who put me in office. So I'm not sure what you would have me do at this point.

and quit this psuedo-intellectually elitist attitude

'Pseudo-intellectual' sounds an awful lot like a personal attack. 'Elitist' is just hilarious though, coming from the person who has a preferred gender in mind for committee chairs, and wants the Transportation Minister to usurp the Environment Minister and the Energy Minister on all water-related issues, toward the one who's churned out pages and pages of proofreading work for political opponents while championing more equality and less discrimination. How the hell you get 'elitist' out of that is just another one of those mysteries of the center, I guess.

and obstructiveness you have towards other posters.

I want good law to be passed, and bad law not to be passed. OOC: If you are looking for something else, you're in the game for different reasons than I. Some people want law to be good - deal with it.

It's annoying and quite frankly, pathetic. We're all equal here so don't go around pretending that some animals are more equal than others.

I suggest you apply this directly into a mirror.

[Resora]

Classic canard, top work sir. Regardless, if you want a bill to be acceptable, it should be nondiscriminatory.

I've drafted two bills so far that people have deemed acceptable and passed into law, regardless of the language used. Now, whilst you're here, do something constructive and quit this psuedo-intellectually elitist attitude and obstructiveness you have towards other posters. It's annoying and quite frankly, pathetic. We're all equal here so don't go around pretending that some animals are more equal than others.

It's not elitist to point out callous and gender-demeaning language, nor is it obstructionism to criticize language that strengthens rape culture. That has no place here or anywhere else.

You need to cool off, sir.

[CTALNH]

Can anyone draft a bill where it enables this country to become a republican stratocracy?

[Ainin]

Can anyone draft a bill where it enables this country to become a republican stratocracy?

You, perhaps?

[CTALNH]

Can anyone draft a bill where it enables this country to become a republican stratocracy?

You, perhaps?

I wouldn't be able to write a good bill even my life depended on it.

[The Realm of God]

Now, before I draft an Act outlining the rights and responsibilities of citizens, residents and visa holders in Aurentina; I need to know what system our legal system is based on, do we follow Roman (civil) Law or Common Law?

[CTALNH]

Now, before I draft an Act outlining the rights and responsibilities of citizens, residents and visa holders in Aurentina; I need to know what system our legal system is based on, do we follow Roman (civil) Law or Common Law?

Roman of course.


Stratocracy for the win.

[Liberated Counties]

Can anyone draft a bill where it enables this country to become a republican stratocracy?

Whats the difference between a Military Dictatorship and a Stratocracy?

I mean, I know they aren't the same but somewhat akin to eachother, so what's the major difference?

[The Realm of God]

Now, before I draft an Act outlining the rights and responsibilities of citizens, residents and visa holders in Aurentina; I need to know what system our legal system is based on, do we follow Roman (civil) Law or Common Law?

Roman of course.


Stratocracy for the win.

Well if we are going to be a republic (which seems likely), we need to make citizenship come with responsibilities, not just rights. This is because republican citizens control the state and thus should be active participants in government and promoters of civic virtue, it is a republican citizen's civic obligation to be active as a republic cannot stand when its body is composed if those who are passive.

Do we have any objections?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_republicanism

[CTALNH]

Can anyone draft a bill where it enables this country to become a republican stratocracy?

Whats the difference between a Military Dictatorship and a Stratocracy?

I mean, I know they aren't the same but somewhat akin to eachother, so what's the major difference?

One is not authoritarian.
See:
Stratocracy is not the same as a military dictatorship or military junta where the military's political power is not enforced or even supported by other laws. Rather, stratocracy is a form of military government in which the state and the military are traditionally or constitutionally the same entity, and government positions are always occupied by military leaders. Citizens with mandatory and/or voluntary military service, or who have been honorably discharged, have the right to elect and/or govern. The military's political power is supported by law and the society. As such a stratocracy does not have to be autocratic by nature in order to preserve its right to rule.

Hail wikipedia.

[CTALNH]

Roman of course.


Stratocracy for the win.

Well if we are going to be a republic (which seems likely), we need to make citizenship come with responsibilities, not just rights. This is because republican citizens control the state and thus should be active participants in government and promoters of civic virtue, it is a republican citizen's civic obligation to be active as a republic cannot stand when its body is composed if those who are passive.

Do we have any objections?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_republicanism

None at all.Jacobins viva la liberte

[Liberated Counties]

Whats the difference between a Military Dictatorship and a Stratocracy?

I mean, I know they aren't the same but somewhat akin to eachother, so what's the major difference?

One is not authoritarian.
See:
Stratocracy is not the same as a military dictatorship or military junta where the military's political power is not enforced or even supported by other laws. Rather, stratocracy is a form of military government in which the state and the military are traditionally or constitutionally the same entity, and government positions are always occupied by military leaders. Citizens with mandatory and/or voluntary military service, or who have been honorably discharged, have the right to elect and/or govern. The military's political power is supported by law and the society. As such a stratocracy does not have to be autocratic by nature in order to preserve its right to rule.

Hail wikipedia.

The only place I don't check is the only place with a simple enough answer.

[Jetan]

I was stating my (or a random non-sexist person's) requirements.

No you weren't. You were spewing politically correct nonsense, there is nothing wrong with the title of "Chairman" Mrs. Chairman works just as well as Mr. Chairman. Kindly stop pretending to represent all of us ("us" being the persons holding non-sexists opinions) Senator.

[Fulflood]

I was stating my (or a random non-sexist person's) requirements.

No you weren't. You were spewing politically correct nonsense, there is nothing wrong with the title of "Chairman" Mrs. Chairman works just as well as Mr. Chairman.

Personally I think Mrs. Chairman sounds distinctly odd. It's not a bad idea to put everyone on a level playing field by removing references to sexes with regards to the naming of official positions.

[Oneracon]

I was stating my (or a random non-sexist person's) requirements.

No you weren't. You were spewing politically correct nonsense, there is nothing wrong with the title of "Chairman" Mrs. Chairman works just as well as Mr. Chairman. Kindly stop pretending to represent all of us ("us" being the persons holding non-sexists opinions) Senator.

I still don't see what's wrong with using "chair" to describe someone in charge... it's been used since the mid 1600s.

[Jetan]

No you weren't. You were spewing politically correct nonsense, there is nothing wrong with the title of "Chairman" Mrs. Chairman works just as well as Mr. Chairman.

Personally I think Mrs. Chairman sounds distinctly odd. It's not a bad idea to put everyone on a level playing field by removing references to sexes with regards to the naming of official positions.

It's pointless and makes mountains out of molehills. For example, the term we use in Finland is "Puhemies" translating to "Chairman" or literally "speechman" and there has never been any problems. And women have held the position aswell as men.

No you weren't. You were spewing politically correct nonsense, there is nothing wrong with the title of "Chairman" Mrs. Chairman works just as well as Mr. Chairman. Kindly stop pretending to represent all of us ("us" being the persons holding non-sexists opinions) Senator.

I still don't see what's wrong with using "chair" to describe someone in charge... it's been used since the mid 1600s.

That would be fine aswell. But changing titles just to be more PC is both pointless and stupid.

[Oneracon]

I still don't see what's wrong with using "chair" to describe someone in charge... it's been used since the mid 1600s.

That would be fine aswell. But changing titles just to be more PC is both pointless and stupid.

Social consideration is not pointless or stupid.

[Jetan]

That would be fine aswell. But changing titles just to be more PC is both pointless and stupid.

Social consideration is not pointless or stupid.

Political Correctness is not Social consideration.

[Pyreneesia]

Don't we have more important things to worry about then gender terms and PC?

[Oneracon]

Social consideration is not pointless or stupid.

Political Correctness is not Social consideration.

Political correctness is a buzzword created by reactionaries to describe social consideration.

Don't we have more important things to worry about then gender terms and PC?

I think that not codifying a societal assumption that certain professions should be associated with males is fairly important. As for "PC", see above.

[Pyreneesia]

Political Correctness is not Social consideration.

Political correctness is a buzzword created by reactionaries to describe social consideration.

Don't we have more important things to worry about then gender terms and PC?

I think that not codifying a societal assumption that certain professions should be associated with males is fairly important. As for "PC", see above.

Why is it do hard to call a girl a her and a boy a him? I mean seriously why does that matter if they feet called by a gender name? If someone's a transgender person then you call them by the gender they associate with. I mean I'm not going to go around going "look at it!" or "he's an it" as it takes away their human aspect. Honestly Coasta brought up a good point we have no forign policy and no Immagration plan but some how what we call people is more important?

[The Realm of God]

Man translates into Latin as homo, homo is used in the modern sense to denote humanity such as Homo Sapian. Therefore as a suffix, man denotes a human.being, so there is no problem is there.