SENATE BILL: Atlasian Senior Care Act (Law'd)

[Maxwell]

Here's a boring procedural thing: In the original bill, Section 11 references itself for the age limits, when age limits are specifically mentioned in Section 10. I could make an amendment on that, along with the idea that giving extra 15 years of full benefits for particularly hard jobs but only 10 years of partial benefits is something I wish to amend, so that it is evenly weighted.

Here's an amendment idea I had:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I fully expect this to be hostile, but who knows.

[Maxwell]

I am completely and totally opposed to that amendment. We should not create separate classes where none exist presently, so far as job category is concerned.

Well, if you look at the actual bill this stems from, it already does so. I am just balancing it out. It is my mistake of bolding the whole thing.

[Maxwell]

I fully expect this to be hostile, but who knows.

WTF

Since the bill you had was an amendment to the original bill, I decided to read section six through and through and saw some things that could use changes. I mean, again, debating issues is good dude.

[Maxwell]

I fully expect this to be hostile, but who knows.

WTF

Since the bill you had was an amendment to the original bill, I decided to read section six through and through and saw some things that could use changes. I mean, again, debating issues is good dude.

Debating issues is fine. Cranking it up to maximum douchebaggery in multiple threads is what bothers me. Why do you "fully expect it to be hostile"?

"maximum douchebaggery"? I was just being a Senator, trying to start on a good foot. I thought it was going to hostile because I was lessening benefits in the name of consistency.

[Maxwell]

I fully expect this to be hostile, but who knows.

WTF

Since the bill you had was an amendment to the original bill, I decided to read section six through and through and saw some things that could use changes. I mean, again, debating issues is good dude.

Debating issues is fine. Cranking it up to maximum douchebaggery in multiple threads is what bothers me. Why do you "fully expect it to be hostile"?

"maximum douchebaggery"? I was just being a Senator, trying to start on a good foot. I thought it was going to hostile because I was lessening benefits in the name of consistency.

Well after accusing me of wanting to obliterate the foundations of Atlasia and other things...

I don't see how passing judgment on the sponsor of a bill is trying to start on a good foot. I'm not illiterate.

"Hi guys! I have somethinf that could improve the bill, so the sponsor probably won't want it"

Well, I'm sorry I was accusatory, I just was thinking that anything that may cut benefits would possibly be against your purpose of this bill, and you might've been hostile to it. Sorry.

[Maxwell]

Well if that's how you keant it then I apologize for taking it wrong but I don't know, you've been the same way in two other threads....

Next time I won't pretend to know the authors intent.

[Maxwell]

I fixed it Yank, I think you're right on that, but "on" i don't think changes its meaning that drastically.

[Maxwell]

Should we wait for the GM to inaugurate to do a cost analysis? This looks okay minus that little extra bit of information.

[Maxwell]

It's more up to Napoleon and whether he thinks it's necessary, but I would prefer if we got one.

[Maxwell]

Oh wow. Should we tinker with this a bit to cut costs?

[Maxwell]

Aye

[Maxwell]

So we aren't going to do anything that makes this cost effective? Fantastic!

[Maxwell]

Something I just noticed. Shouldn't it say clause 10 instead of section 10?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Does this work Sjoyce?

Hey, you're absolutely right. One last amendment after this before we hopefully get some kind of final vote.

[Maxwell]

Yes Yankee, that was what I was referencing. With Mr. Goner as the sponsor though, we are probably going to vote on a change as simple as that

[Maxwell]

Aye duh

[Maxwell]

This is, possibly, the most basic amendment ever to go to a vote.

Nay

Are you trolling bro? the only change is to make it Clause 10 (the italicized stuff is the changes, not the bolded)

[Maxwell]

Unfortunately, since we have no GM at the moment, I don't think we can get a cost analysis. However, since we did push through a measure that would do a decent deal to lower costs, as well as make the language of the bill it amends make sense, I'll probably be voting in favor.

[Maxwell]

Thank you Yank, this is correct.

A Narrow Aye.