It's a pretty incredible U-turn, policy wise. They have completely ran scared from all of their unpopular policies. Really awesome stuff.

The best solution to that problem, I think, would be to do the following:

-Include a clause that says Canada and Atlasia will convene as this agreement is put into place to build a cohesive and unified method of border security.
-This will be told in a non-game sense by the GM who will "report" on the progress and then propose the recommendations of this fictional commission.
-Then the Senate implements those recommendations in law when that happens.

I don't think anything about this should nullify the entire agreement; even NAFTA in the "real" world has numerous points of contention that have gone on years after it's been the standard.

The concerns over border security are understandable, but I'm not really sure this is the sort of thing that can be hashed out in this specific agreement. Similar to specifying tariff and agricultural subsidy rules in a very specific and targeted fashion, it's just the sort of thing that is beyond the scope of what we're capable of, I think. I like the idea of the "enhanced license" stuff, but I feel like that's the sort of thing we set up in a separate piece of legislation as a more general proposal rather than something that is tacked on to the Common Market proposal.

Also, before anyone does bring it up: The controversy in the Pacific region right now is unaffected entirely by this, as the region still exists, it just doesn't have a regional government at the moment; for residency purposes and electoral purposes, nothing has changed from the perspective of this proposal.

Didn't President Marokai appoint you to pull the Pacific region out of a state of anarchy?

Indeed.

Griffin, write Atlasia-themed poetry more often.

<3

Socialist. It's simple and easy, and I genuinely enjoy explaining to people that it's really quite benign compared to popular misconceptions of what the word means.

This is not the first time we've had a less than stellar Senate and you've had the opportunity to do something about that fact. You're a hyperpartisan whenever it suits you, and then you're suddenly some sort of Reasonable Hero when being a hyperpartisan no longer suits you.

Remember when BRTD was running for Senate? He had done absolutely nothing for years in Atlasia prior to that point, and was only pulled out of a bag at the last minute to serve as a JCP candidate for all of the rank and file to vote for on order. Your defense of that was this:

How a Senator votes would be the most meaningful way to determine quality, so they go hand in hand.

Well that is that then. I can't craft public policy by electing Senators who would oppose that policy. There is no logic in that period.

You defended any allegations of inactivity and general laziness and notgiveaf**kery by saying that the most important requirement to getting your vote is voting alongside your ideology. BRTD then proceeded to do practically nothing but vote however you wanted him to vote for the rest of his term after he was, bafflingly, elected, and you defended him that entire time.

You don't care about helping the Right. You don't care about anything. All you care about is embedding yourself in a clique and forming whatever group you can to do your bidding. You don't have a solid left-wing anymore and the Liberal Party has been adrift for months, so your only new avenue for success is picking and choosing amongst the Shuas and Poirots of the game, and banking on support from those who don't pay any close attention to your shenanigans. This is just yet another self-serving change in the grand narrative that has been Napoleon.

Faulty basis here.

Gov't buys up guns, guns become scarcer. Prices rise and the manufacturers produce more to take advantage of the resulting higher prices. It is a stimulus program alright, one that will leave more guns on the street and a couple of million dollars more in the portfolios of a bunch of corporate suits who divide their time between NRA rallies (who will also get a cut of that cash as well) and the gulf course.

That is a peculiar view of buyback programs that I have never seen alleged, much less proven.

Its nice to learn my suspicions were correct. I will try to remember.

I'm not even eyerolling at the idea of the Right having power, because I don't think that would be as catastrophic as some on my "team," if you will, think it would be, but the idea of those words coming from you is so completely hilarious that I couldn't resist. You are seriously one of the most knowingly dishonest individuals I have ever met.

I'm sure that we'll have plenty of people voting next weekend, but sheer quantity of votes means very little in terms of activity. We need to get serious about turning things around.

Perhaps giving the Right a chance to govern would make things more interesting? Especially given the composition of the current Senate.

I'm pleased knowing I'll get to work with you in my remaining two weeks, Gass. Congratulations.

The problem with gun buyback programs in the past have been their super small-scale approach and lack of serious financial backing. Most buyback programs at this point occur on a local level, and rarely ever have more than a million dollars to throw around, let alone anything much larger.

In some ways, this is a bit of an experiment, but it's a worthy one. Gun buyback programs, effective at getting illegal weapons or not, nonetheless reduce the amount of guns in circulation if literally nothing else. I believe that alone is a worthy goal. More than that, though, they are effective at reducing the circulation of unsafe or antiquated weapons that shouldn't be used at all, or aren't being cared for properly. In many ways, this is a kinder, gentler form of gun control, and with half a billion dollars in a nationally organized effort, we stand a much greater chance of matching the success of an Australian style buyback program, rather than a City of Cincinnati gun buyback weekend.

And hell, if it helps, you could look at this as also an economically stimulative proposal.

Does there is measures taken to be sure than people are really the owners of the guns they sell to government?

Such measures usually aren't taken, since the goal is to reduce the amount of guns in circulation as much as possible, and many people don't have documentation on such things, especially since gun control in Atlasia has only very recently gotten strict. Requiring additional procedure would reduce the intended effect.

I could be applying too much real life standard to Atlasia but I would have a problem if a legislator or executive was not even living in the jurisdiction the laws he make will apply. It could happen down the road a candidate for Senate living in Manitoba gets told why should I vote for you, you don't even live in the country.

Perhaps the Senate doesn't share (or even see) my concern. I saw the situation of a citizen living in a foreign land legislating or having power over Atlasia a potential problem.

I welcome the participation, of course, but I don't see why there is any problem in allowing Atlasian citizens to live and still participate in politics from whatever valid place of residency they have. I don't see what sort of actual problem that could cause, and people should be free to make their own judgment on who they want to vote for. The only solution to this idea would be to basically bar anyone who has an official residency in Canada from being elected to office.. which would effectively destroy the only part of this proposal that actually has in-game effects.

If someone can actually detail a real, quantifiable problem that this could cause, then there's a discussion to be had there. But this just seems like a very subjective and personal concern that we shouldn't legislate against just 'cuz, especially since it would basically neutralize the most important part of this proposal from a game perspective.

[1] Gass3268
[2] Superique
[3] Jerryarkansas

Will our Canadians be able to run for office in Canada now?

Who can run for Canadian elected office is up to Canada to determine. You seem to be misunderstanding all of this residency stuff.

It's a solution in search of a problem. There's nothing that needs to be "fixed" there, and the logic to it doesn't make any sense and can be followed to sheer absurdity.

If anyone else can reside there, there shouldn't be any restriction on a Senator residing there. If a Senator can't reside there, why should a President reside there? If the President can't reside there, why should any member of the federal government reside there? If a member of the federal government shouldn't have a residence in Canada, why should a regional government member be allowed to have a residence in Canada?

etc, etc. It's a stupid line of logic that basically seeks to invalidate a key part of the proposal for a silly and unnecessary personal objection. If you find it distasteful, that is a personal view, but there's no sense to legally restricting residency if it is a valid place of residence for anyone else in any other circumstance.

It's a rather arbitrary objection.

Are there any other concerns, here?

Considering the nature of this game I think it's a bit excessive to allow for a term to extend beyond a year.

The inclusion of a super bowl related holiday is one of the silliest things I've seen asked for, and it's something I'm not very keen on signing should it be included in the final product.

It's humorous to me that bills like this seem to get the most debate, these days, as well.

There just doesn't seem to be a logical reason to get the One unless you are absolutely in love with MS exclusives and Live (and I mean to the point that you can't live without them.) The PS4 is a hundred dollars cheaper, and has way less restrictions.

As well as more powerful hardware and an online service that is both cheaper and a better value.

Tough choice between Civil War and Reconstruction era Republicans and turn-of-the-20th-century Republicans. I really can't pick.

I can't even imagine what kind of person you have to be to sit around stewing about the replacement of the Articles of Confederation.

I really don't know how I would answer this question at all, though. There are a lot of things I dislike, but no one law sticks out in my mind as something I go through my days hating day in and day out. Gramm–Leach–Bliley, maybe? I don't know. I'd be much more likely to go after court decisions or Constitutional Amendments, but those aren't laws, really.

Mildly disapprove.

There's been some question over whether or not this is a resolution or a bill, but I'll operate under the assumption it's an Act of the Senate, since this seems structured in that fashion.

x Marokai Blue