Advertisement

by Holy Roman Confederate » Fri Sep 03, 2010 11:33 am
by Sanctaria » Fri Sep 03, 2010 11:34 am
Holy Roman Confederate wrote:I'm almost inclined to hope another delegate steps forward just to keep things interesting.

by Quelesh » Fri Sep 03, 2010 11:50 am

by Glen-Rhodes » Fri Sep 03, 2010 11:58 am

by Holy Roman Confederate » Fri Sep 03, 2010 11:59 am

by Unibot » Fri Sep 03, 2010 1:02 pm
Vocenae wrote:Unibot, you have won NS.

by Quadrimmina » Fri Sep 03, 2010 1:30 pm

by Quelesh » Fri Sep 03, 2010 1:56 pm


by Embolalia » Fri Sep 03, 2010 4:52 pm
Bergnovinaia wrote:I pray this gets murdered when it reaches vote (because it will, assuredly reach vote, unless someone immediately takes action and sends out campaign tg's against it.
| /ˌɛmboʊˈlɑːliːʌ/ | My mostly worthless blog Economic Left/Right: -5.88 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.51 Liberal atheist bisexual, and proud of it.
|

by Bergnovinaia » Fri Sep 03, 2010 4:56 pm
Quelesh wrote:Approved for the lulz.

by Embolalia » Fri Sep 03, 2010 5:07 pm
Quelesh wrote:Approved for the lulz.
| /ˌɛmboʊˈlɑːliːʌ/ | My mostly worthless blog Economic Left/Right: -5.88 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.51 Liberal atheist bisexual, and proud of it.
|

by Quelesh » Fri Sep 03, 2010 5:32 pm


by Krayt III » Fri Sep 03, 2010 5:54 pm
Serrland wrote:Good Lord, it only needs five more approvals in just over a day. Why oh why don't people post their proposals here for debate first?!

by Embolalia » Fri Sep 03, 2010 7:49 pm
Quelesh wrote:Approval withdrawn. I want it to be right there on the cusp of approval.
| /ˌɛmboʊˈlɑːliːʌ/ | My mostly worthless blog Economic Left/Right: -5.88 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.51 Liberal atheist bisexual, and proud of it.
|

by United Marktoria » Fri Sep 03, 2010 7:59 pm
Krayt III wrote:In the last 3 hours it went from 55 to 52 to 53 back to 52. its going to be real close.

Conserative Morality wrote:He stares into your soul and says 'If you oppose Freedom, I will rip out your heart and fertilize my fields with your blood, afterwords, I will construct architectural marvels with your bones and write entire books on your cured skin.'
You can tell a lot about a man's intentions from his stare.
Ifreann wrote:I'm an atheist because God spoke to me through a burningpile of evidencebush and said unto me "Go forth, and piss my people off!".

by Embolalia » Fri Sep 03, 2010 8:04 pm
| /ˌɛmboʊˈlɑːliːʌ/ | My mostly worthless blog Economic Left/Right: -5.88 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.51 Liberal atheist bisexual, and proud of it.
|

by GeneralHaNor » Fri Sep 03, 2010 9:51 pm
Victorious Decepticons wrote:If they said "this is what you enjoy so do this" and handed me a stack of my favorite video games, then it'd be far different. But governments don't work that way. They'd hand me a dishrag...
And I'd hand them an insurgency.
Trotskylvania wrote:Don't kid yourself. The state is a violent, destructive institution of class dictatorship. The fact that the proles have bargained themselves the drippings from their master's plates doesn't legitimize the state.

by Unibot » Fri Sep 03, 2010 11:49 pm
Vocenae wrote:Unibot, you have won NS.

by Argonia and Gergoniva » Sat Sep 04, 2010 3:13 am
by Charlotte Ryberg » Sat Sep 04, 2010 3:38 am
GeneralHaNor wrote:It's in Que
I can't believe this is actually going to vote.
This is not what this body of nations was designed for.
Let it be said, I will oppose this, with as much passion as I oppose, or support issues that actually matter.
And I already have legalized gaming.
So that tells you my level of conviction

by Bears Armed » Sat Sep 04, 2010 6:09 am
Illegal proposal in queue?
The quorate (& first in the queue) GA proposal 'Gaming Rights and Regulations' is classified as 'Gambling'/ 'Legaliize'.
Whilst I acknowledge that its author's intention may have been for the first operative clause ('Regulation 1') to legalize gambling within all WA member nations, that fact that its actual wording gives the right to "legalized Casino Gambling, Sports Betting and Lottery" to the 'WA Nations' rather than to the peoples of those nations means that in practice all this clause does is confirm national governments' right to legalize (or ban) such activities as they choose...
Therefore, as all of the other operative clauses are restrictive ones, shouldn't the proposal have been classified & submitted as 'Outlaw' rather than as 'Legalize'... and doesn't that make the submitted version illegal?

by Embolalia » Sat Sep 04, 2010 7:05 am
Bears Armed wrote:GHR submitted _
| /ˌɛmboʊˈlɑːliːʌ/ | My mostly worthless blog Economic Left/Right: -5.88 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.51 Liberal atheist bisexual, and proud of it.
|

by Bergnovinaia » Sat Sep 04, 2010 8:15 am
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement