| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Welcome to Mock Parliament. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| PASSED: Declaration of International Neutrality; Private Member Legistlation Motion | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Sep 7 2008, 08:51 PM (1,266 Views) | |
| Cieran | Oct 19 2008, 12:45 AM Post #76 |
![]()
Should-like-totally-be-the Prime Minister
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I didn't even see it. I just look at the latest replies, unless something particularly interesting seems to have been going on. I don't see why it leaves Autocratia in a stronger position. The same outcome is achieved. If this bill had always been the case it would have been achieved faster with little of the dallying or problems caused by what actually happened. Not condemning is not the same as not supporting. Even an idiot can see that. And don't use QED. Makes you look pretentious and stuck-up... |
![]() |
|
| master dingley | Oct 19 2008, 08:45 AM Post #77 |
|
Learned Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Why doesn't someone make an amendment motion limiting the powers of this bill? As in listing further circumstances when the neutrality may be broken and so forth. |
![]() |
|
| plqx | Oct 19 2008, 09:51 AM Post #78 |
![]()
overlord of the Solafian universe
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Because anyone would sooner repeal the bill outright or wouldn't support said ammendment, or can't think of anything... Why don't you come up with an ammendment? |
![]() |
|
| master dingley | Oct 19 2008, 10:21 AM Post #79 |
|
Learned Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Surerly there must be some middle ground that everyone would agree on? And I won't make it as I've not payed too much attention to the bill and so if I had made it, it would fail miserably b not taking any points into account. An amendment would be much better suited to someone who has taken part in this discussion from the start
|
![]() |
|
| eriatarka1 | Oct 19 2008, 02:08 PM Post #80 |
![]()
Home Secretary
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Dear sir, right honourable gentleman, you are quite clearly multifacetedly incorrect. Or at very least utterly irrelevant. Could you please write in a less highfalutin, rhetorical style - by which I mean in a clearer and less ambigyouus fashion - what you meant by the first phrase below, because the internal logic is correct, but in context is wildly bizarre. I'm sure and trust in your utter knowledge and command over English vocabulary, and I trust deeply that mea culpa est, but could you still right that (preferably using the terms neutrality, condemnation, and support)? And as far as a claim to pretension goes - I am not making an outward display of ideas above my station, as I am a Latin scholar. I use Latin. I am perfectly entitled to use it as and when I wish without others coursing back to namecalling. Furthermore, and you probably didn't realise this, I was carefully and mindfully utilising the duel style, schema and form of both a governmental bill in the context of Mock Parliament and a logical proof in the form of words, as well as I can remember how they go. The QED at the end was therefore justified and will forever be so. And don't use the ellipsis. It makes you appear not in full control of your lexico-grammatical functions... EDIT was for clarity. |
![]() |
|
| Cieran | Oct 19 2008, 06:34 PM Post #81 |
![]()
Should-like-totally-be-the Prime Minister
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Thankyou for completely sidestepping the point :)... |
![]() |
|
| HRH King Zog II | Oct 19 2008, 07:17 PM Post #82 |
|
Waffler of the House of Boreds
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
How can we go into any deep relations with countries if this bill forces us to abandon them in case of trouble? We talk with the world but that it all it will be. Talk. |
![]() |
|
| Cieran | Oct 19 2008, 07:31 PM Post #83 |
![]()
Should-like-totally-be-the Prime Minister
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Isn't that better than fighting and death?... |
![]() |
|
| HRH King Zog II | Oct 19 2008, 08:12 PM Post #84 |
|
Waffler of the House of Boreds
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Being un-neutral does not commit us to fighting |
![]() |
|
| Cieran | Oct 19 2008, 08:20 PM Post #85 |
![]()
Should-like-totally-be-the Prime Minister
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
How then do you expect us to solve things? You can talk or you can fight. That's the only way you're going to resolve conflicts... |
![]() |
|
| HRH King Zog II | Oct 19 2008, 10:57 PM Post #86 |
|
Waffler of the House of Boreds
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
By having the option to fight the talk becomes more powerful |
![]() |
|
| miniyoda008 | Oct 19 2008, 11:20 PM Post #87 |
|
Master of the Force
![]()
|
The ability to declare war was already very restricted by the constitution: requiring a two thirds majority to happen. This bill adds an entirely pointless layer of bureaucracy, which wastes time if war is deemed desirable. |
![]() |
|
| Commoncold0 | Oct 20 2008, 01:03 AM Post #88 |
|
Elder Statesman
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
War, despite all its horrors, is sometimes the lesser of two evils. |
![]() |
|
| eriatarka1 | Oct 20 2008, 08:16 AM Post #89 |
![]()
Home Secretary
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Let me try this one again. I can't work out what on earth you meant by your statement, the key integral one with which I know I disagree. Please rewrite it instead of coming off with a smug "na na not listening" just because it took it upon myself to feel a need to defend my use of English. Never question my use of English. It is correct. I would have hoped that you would have noticed this by now. And as an overall judgement of the bill, and therefore hopefully the last thing I have to do about this most horrific of bills: Neutrality! Huh! What is it good for? Absolutely nothing. |
![]() |
|
| Cieran | Oct 20 2008, 08:37 AM Post #90 |
![]()
Should-like-totally-be-the Prime Minister
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I fail to see how I could make it any clearer. YOUR post I pretty much just skipped through. Actual reading would lead to the RAAAAGE face... EDIT: Why am I the only one defending this anyway? It's not even my bill... |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Debates · Next Topic » |






![]](http://z1.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)






8:59 AM Jul 11