I have yet to see him do anything worthwhile, under this administration or the previous two. He's been the biggest roadblock to my mission to emphasize foreign affairs as much as is deserved.

I'm sorry, but that is a load of crap.  You know full well that I've worked extremely hard to emphasize foreign policy; just a few days ago I (again) asked the Senate to begin debate on my FPR.  I appreciate that you have introduced it finally, but it's been sitting around for more than 3 months, with nobody doing anything.  When the Senate ignores me, I lose faith.  Shua and I are working on a major story, and I'm preparing another one.  Be patient, and you'll get your stories.

But this isn't about stories.  It's about your personal vendetta against me.  That's why you made this public, and why you changed your confirmation vote for Aye to Nay in the initial thread.  I'd love to work with you, Napoleon, but you block me at every opportunity.  You claimed I was a roadblock on the Imperialism Bill; I was never consulted, save by Polnut.  Work with me, and you'll discover the reason I've been hired by four Presidents from three Parties.

To be honest I was high and thought I was voting on something else. Good to see you've decided to take some of the advice in this thread however.

Who? Scott
Why? Ideology and homestate

Nathan for Veepers

[Normal/None:]

Department of External Affairs: September 2011 Foreign Policy Review

Definitions of the DoEA's Foreign Policy Review

Economic/Trade Restrictions:

Normal/None: Atlasian government and corporations are free to due business unhindered by government enforced restrictions.

Partial: Specific restrictions such as selective tariffs or partial embargoes are to be in place to attack the government and not the regime. Foreign aid can be granted if the regime shows signs of progress towards democracy.

Full: Complete embargo and trade is forbidden with the nation in question. Corporations in violation may face fines decided by the Senate.

Military Restrictions:

Normal/None: Any military hardware produced by private firms, or by the government of Atlasia may be sold to the government in question. However, nuclear material, technology and nuclear weapons may not be sold unless the Senate agrees with the sale of atomic technology to the nation in question.

Partial: Personnel weapons may be sold by private corporations or the state to the country in question. Personnel weapons are weapons, which are carried and operated by one man, i.e. assault rifles, mortars, RPGs, etc. No vehicles, armour, aircraft, or ships may be sold.

Full: No military equipment of any nature may be sold privately or by Atlasia, i.e. no uniforms, guns, vehicles, nothing.

DoEA Policy: Asia and Oceania

Afghanistan: Normal, though we are concerned about corruption, drugs, woman's rights and other issues.
Australia: Normal
Bahrain: Partial military and no economic restrictions.  The Atlasian Government strongly condemns the measures taken against protesters in Bahrain.
Bangladesh: Normal
Bhutan: Normal
Brunei: Partial military and partial economic restrictions
Burma (Myanmar): Full military and partial economic restrictions. We urge for a full transfer to democracy, and the respect for civil liberties and basic political freedoms.
Cambodia: Normal, though we are concerned about corruption and civil liberties.
China: Partial military restrictions and no economic restrictions, though we are very concerned over human rights, and political liberties. We realize that China is a major economic partner and full economic restrictions would be counter-productive to the Atlasian and global economy.
East Timor: Normal
Federated States of Micronesia: Normal
Fiji: Full military and partial economic restrictions.
India: Normal
Indonesia: Normal
Iran: Full military and economic restrictions will remain in place until the Iranian regime makes full, honest and lasting overtures to democracy, as well as fully renouncing any attempt at a nuclear program.
Iraq: Normal, though we have major concerns about corruption and other issues.
Israel: Normal; however, the DoEA urges Israel to end all settlements and work harder towards reaching a settlement to the Palestinian crisis.
Japan: Normal
Jordan: Normal, though we want a full transfer to democracy.
Kazakhstan: Partial military and no economic restrictions. We want a full transfer to democracy.
Kiribati: Normal
Kuwait: Normal.
Kyrgyzstan: Partial military and no economic restrictions
Laos: Normal, though we have concerns about human rights and basic freedoms.
Lebanon: Full military and no economic restrictions.
Malaysia: Partial military and no economic restrictions.
Maldives: Normal
Marshall Islands: Normal
Mongolia: Normal
Nauru: Normal
Nepal: Normal
New Zealand: Normal
North Korea: Full military and economic restrictions
Oman: Partial military and no economic restrictions
Pakistan: Normal, though we are extremely concerned about the apparent role of the ISI in harboring terrorists.
Palau: Normal
Palestine: Normal, though we are gravely concerned by the current political situation. Atlasia supports a two-state solution and would like a democratic and independent state of Palestine in the near future.
Papua New Guinea: Normal
Philippines: Normal
Qatar: Normal, though we want a full transfer to democracy.
Samoa: Normal
Saudi Arabia: Partial military and no economic restrictions. We are concerned about the human rights situation and urge the government to make major democratic reforms.
Singapore: Normal, though we would like a true democracy.
Solomon Islands: Normal
South Korea: Normal
Sri Lanka: Normal, though we are concerned about a few issues. We urge the government to build a modern, peaceful, democratic and multi-ethnic state with peaceful ethnic relations in the wake of the end of the civil war.
Syria: Full military and economic restrictions.  The regime of Bashar al-Assad has committed significant human rights violations against its people, and it is time for Mr. Assad to accept the will of his people and resign his position and allow Syria to become a democratic state.
Tajikistan: Full military and economic restrictions
Thailand: Normal, though we are keeping a close eye on the political situation and we will re-evalute the Free Trade Act with Thailand if need be.
Tonga: Normal
Turkmenistan: Full military and economic restrictions
Tuvalu: Normal
United Arab Emirates: Partial military and no economic restrictions. We are concerned about workers rights and political freedoms.
Uzbekistan: Full military and economic restrictions
Vanuatu: Normal
Vietnam: Normal
Yemen: Normal

I present the full FPR to the Senate and ask a Senator to assume sponsorship of this bill and urge the Senate to approve it, as per the terms of F.L. 32-18: Amendment to the SoEA Role Codification Act.

x Ben, Secretary of External Affairs

We need someone other than Homelycooking to be active in the Cabinet in order to take that advantage, my friend. Anyway, this is just an idea. I think it'd be fun to have a SoEA interact with a Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, if we ever get around to giving that idea a try.

1.  I'm relatively active.  Shua and I have an update coming out soon, and I did publish an FPR a few weeks ago I'd like the Senate to review.

2.  I'd also love to interact with a Foreign Affairs Committee.  Bring it on.

On September 3rd? Last time you updated or posted in office we didn't even have a PPT.

Yes, but if we got homely as dual SOFE/RG,

I would actually be more than willing to do both administrative jobs, now that I know I'll never make the fatal mistake of opening the polls a day early again.

It's actually nice to have the booth open on weekdays and weekend days. Friday being a little of both of course.

RG and SoFE are intertwined enough that it should be one job anyway but yeah. Go Homely!

Maybe if we developed the idea more it would be feasible, but I'm not sure right now.  Obviously though, we should be taking advantage of the cabinet flexibility amendment we made into law and see if it helps before totally restructuring.

We need someone other than Homelycooking to be active in the Cabinet in order to take that advantage, my friend. Anyway, this is just an idea. I think it'd be fun to have a SoEA interact with a Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, if we ever get around to giving that idea a try.

Yes, but if we got homely as dual SOFE/RG, and got someone else active into the cabinet, they could theoretically fix the SOEA problem, and perhaps the SOIA problem, if no stories come.  I don't really want to see us eliminating positions.  Really, we should have made the cabinet flexibility amendment allow Regional Rep's, Governors, ect to have a cabinet position as well.  If you'd like to help me with such an attempt, we could certainly do that.

I, honestly, would not really support allowing regional officials into the cabinet but hell, we can't even fill those positions. I feel like the competitive aspect is more appreciated than the administrative aspect. Also, your plan doesn't give Snowguy more to say!!!!!

Yikes I might have to cancel my trip to the Pacific.

Maybe if we developed the idea more it would be feasible, but I'm not sure right now.  Obviously though, we should be taking advantage of the cabinet flexibility amendment we made into law and see if it helps before totally restructuring.

We need someone other than Homelycooking to be active in the Cabinet in order to take that advantage, my friend. Anyway, this is just an idea. I think it'd be fun to have a SoEA interact with a Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, if we ever get around to giving that idea a try.

In order to 1) increase productivity within the executive 2) free up active players to run for Senate and regional office and 3) give Snowguy non-press release things to post in his office, could this work?

Obviously we need RG AG and SoFE to be handled by actual people... but the President could simply post "Secretary of State Someone visited China today blah blah" and tell us what those offices are doing. It's clear there's something making it difficult to put a decent cabinet together.

Just throwing this out there. I've always said game reform needs a healthy discussion and visible problem solving capabilities to succeed. I think this will solve some blatant problems so lets discuss.

Maybe all of us should take month long breaks from doing anything at all. Let's see where the game goes.

You are not complaining about the other people who have not done their job?

I complained about you when you were threatening to neglect your duties. I tried to recall Ghostwhite when he was inactive.

That being said, the first sentence of the first post in this thread might tell you why the rest of the following says what it says.

Reading comprehension : works everytime

 Yet, you attack Ben?  One of the two alternating SOEA.  One of two who actually ever really wanted the job?

I can't express how sick I am of this perpetually retarded myth that Ben should get the job because he wants it and no one else does. I'm willing to judge a President by the quality of his Cabinet selections, for sure.

I understand you have dislike each other, but seriously, what's this going to solve?  Do we have a viable alternative?  More importantly, why aren't we talking about the cabinet as a whole?  Instead we focus on one individual?  If Ben can't do the job that's fine, replace him with someone who will.  Let's just not pretend that he's the only obstruction in the cabinet.

Pretty clearly stated why. It's because foreign policy is something I care about. The SoEA might not care about it, but I want to see it become a more meaningful aspect of the game.

Napoleon has his few people he dislikes and focuses in on them.

Wah wah. This has nothing to do with whether or not I like Ben. He hasn't done his job.

I'm not fond of creating new positions. I've worked towards cabinet consolidation and my Constitution eliminated some regional offices. We have enough trouble getting Senate candidates or active Secretaries. I'd like to see the Governors do it personally.

That sounds reasonable. It's just that, from what those who were around when districts were drawn by governors have said, it sounds like it didn't work out very well. Also, the members of the redistricting committee would (preferably) be allowed to serve in multiple offices.

The same people who could serve as governor are the same people who could serve on a committee. I guess all it is is getting the right people to do the right thing. It could very well be someone screwing up, not something screwing up. We tend to forget that here.

But technically we could have the governors and AG or something involved too. Make it interesting.

I'm not fond of creating new positions. I've worked towards cabinet consolidation and my Constitution eliminated some regional offices. We have enough trouble getting Senate candidates or active Secretaries. I'd like to see the Governors do it personally.

You're just trolling like usual.

Is "everyone else" the proper way to refer to the group of people who understand that business owners and failed business once-owners might vote differently?

Who cares about failed businesses?  The thread is about small business owners, not former small business owners who failed.

A few things:

1. Seems like a "source" is creating drama over nothing. Didn't seem like a jab at Polnut to me.
2. Snowguy has been active in relevant Senate debates, including forcing a bill amendment I didn't want.
3. I think it's nice having a low key President, gives the Senate time to focus on amendments and other reforms. Not every President should be expected to operate similarly, that would get boring and repetitive.

Since I'm ultimately the one in charge of news events, I have to take some responsibility here.  I just thought of this Iraq issue the other day, and I've been discussing possibilities for stories with Ben. Unless the Administration says otherwise, I'm assuming the last troops are already on their way home, and I'll be putting up a story on this shortly.

Napoleon and Kal, if you ever have any ideas for a foreign policy story, I am very interested to hear it.

I was hesitant to post this publicly because I didn't want to see this post. However............. I figured that maybe we will see some action if the public understands the problem the way I do.

I understand that you're a nice and modest guy, shua, but I certainly don't blame you, nor should anyone else. I voted to confirm you for the GM position, not SoEA. Besides, wasn't Ben the one so keen on making sure he had the powers to post stories? Yeah, exactly.

Also note that I am not talking solely about storyline posts, I'm talking about maybe some announcements about what Atlasia is doing around the world or something substantive from the SoEA of any sort... The RPP heaped tons of praise on this guy and I have yet to see him do anything worthwhile, under this administration or the previous two. He's been the biggest roadblock to my mission to emphasize foreign affairs as much as is deserved. So far there hasn't been a single thing, whether he's just being lazy or deliberately attempting to derail the administration is still up for debate.

And to Marokai, since you support strict activity requirements for Senators, I hope you too can join me in this call for a more active SoEA.

Raspberry. Yum.

But apple, cherry, lemon, orange, strawberry etc. are all great too so its a tough choice.

This reminds me of when Marokai kept trying to troll me by referring to me as a libertarian.

That's gotta sting a bit.

[you probably aren't going to get many intelligent substanative answers]

Also true that I haven't yet filed a tax return - I'm strongly considering never doing so.

Third post in I told you guys what the trajectory of this thread was going to be.

why do small business owners skew so republican?

That is such a complicated question that you probably aren't going to get many intelligent substanative answers.

That post wasn't meant to answer the OP so quit trolling.

Small business owners skew Republican because they view the Democrats as the party that wants to impose more rules and regulations on them, from healthcare and pay for employees to environmental restrictions to zoning. Regulations cost business owners more thean just the direct monetary cost imposed, they often require man hours spent trying to comply as well. Small business owners often fall into higher tax brackets and sometimes dislike progressive tax structures.

Small business ownership is also a part of the quntissential the 1950's style American dream vision, that Republicans are better at articulating and defending while liberals often call the American dream "dead".

I thought the 1950s American Dream was well off union workers who could support a wife and kids.

I'd prefer him to cancel the debate and run as an "independent."  His hosting a debate demeans the whole GOP field.  If he runs on his own, he would at least only further demean himself.  If that's possible.

If he gets any votes the whole country looks bad. I remember how embarrassed I was when Bush Jr. got a few votes.