Senate Protest and Analysis Thread

[crypto-fascist superhero]

Well not only that but it's a patently ridiculous scenario; if one thinks there is an imminent threat of being attacked on one's own soil by a power which would require conscription to defeat, kindly do explain what you believe said power to be.

[President Marokai]

Well not only that but it's a patently ridiculous scenario; if one thinks there is an imminent threat of being attacked on one's own soil by a power which would require conscription to defeat, kindly do explain what you believe said power to be.

I don't think it will happen, but such hypotheticals are irrelevent to the point itself.

[Senator Napoleon]

Putting the rights of a government before the rights of its people is a hideously disturbing concept.

[crypto-fascist superhero]

Well not only that but it's a patently ridiculous scenario; if one thinks there is an imminent threat of being attacked on one's own soil by a power which would require conscription to defeat, kindly do explain what you believe said power to be.

I don't think it will happen, but such hypotheticals are irrelevent to the point itself.

Uh no, if you are advocating things based on obviously ridiculous hypotheticals you have to provide evidence that your hypotheticals are not, in fact, ridiculous.  It's essentially the equivalent of claiming gay marriage will turn children gay.  Not a valid argument unless you can provide evidence that the hypothetical has the potential of being real.

[For Oklahoma]

Putting the rights of a government before the rights of its people is a hideously disturbing concept.

This.

I think, if we're going to conscript our own citizens, we're first. And by "we," I mean all Senators, the President, Vice-President, etc.

[President Marokai]

Putting the rights of a government before the rights of its people is a hideously disturbing concept.

The way you approach this issue is incredibly childish; I loathe these silly romantic notions. Stop being so hyperbolic over everything. I've changed my vote to Abstain. TJ's amendment is poorly worded.

[Governor Scott]

The philosophy and morality of every government action should be examined, especially when it comes to restraining or coercing people into doing something.  I fail to see what's pragmatic about forcing people to work for the state and sacrifice not only the direction they want their lives to take, but potentially life itself.  If we neglect to examine the morality of government action and only stick to what appears "ideal," then we sacrifice freedom.  The government's job is to protect people from oppressors, not to become the oppressors.

[For Oklahoma]

Putting the rights of a government before the rights of its people is a hideously disturbing concept.

The way you approach this issue is incredibly childish; I loathe these silly romantic notions. Stop being so hyperbolic over everything. I've changed my vote to Abstain. TJ's amendment is poorly worded.

Usually when you and Napoleon fight, I stay out because generally, you're both wrong. But in this case, Napoleon is right. He's not being childish or hyperbolic. The people should indeed come before the rights of the Government. Just my two sense.

[TJ in Wisco]

Putting the rights of a government before the rights of its people is a hideously disturbing concept.

The way you approach this issue is incredibly childish; I loathe these silly romantic notions. Stop being so hyperbolic over everything. I've changed my vote to Abstain. TJ's amendment is poorly worded.

How would you like it worded?

[For Oklahoma]

The philosophy and morality of every government action should be examined, especially when it comes to restraining or coercing people into doing something.  I fail to see what's pragmatic about forcing people to work for the state and sacrifice not only the direction they want their lives to take, but potentially life itself.  If we neglect to examine the morality of government action and only stick to what appears "ideal," then we sacrifice freedom.  The government's job is to protect people from oppressors, not to become the oppressors.

Sigging this.

[Senator Napoleon]

The philosophy and morality of every government action should be examined, especially when it comes to restraining or coercing people into doing something.  I fail to see what's pragmatic about forcing people to work for the state and sacrifice not only the direction they want their lives to take, but potentially life itself.  If we neglect to examine the morality of government action and only stick to what appears "ideal," then we sacrifice freedom.  The government's job is to protect people from oppressors, not to become the oppressors.

Sigging this.

Vote for Scott if you want the NE to retain a Senator that stands up for our region's values.

[President Marokai]

Putting the rights of a government before the rights of its people is a hideously disturbing concept.

The way you approach this issue is incredibly childish; I loathe these silly romantic notions. Stop being so hyperbolic over everything. I've changed my vote to Abstain. TJ's amendment is poorly worded.

How would you like it worded?

"Attack on Atlasian soil" is a bit too squirrelly for my taste, though I understand what you're going for. If there's some way to reasonably clarify we're referring to being outright invaded, I would support it.

[Governor Scott]

The philosophy and morality of every government action should be examined, especially when it comes to restraining or coercing people into doing something.  I fail to see what's pragmatic about forcing people to work for the state and sacrifice not only the direction they want their lives to take, but potentially life itself.  If we neglect to examine the morality of government action and only stick to what appears "ideal," then we sacrifice freedom.  The government's job is to protect people from oppressors, not to become the oppressors.

Sigging this.

Thanks.

And thanks for making it look like a Ron Paul ad.

[For Oklahoma]

The philosophy and morality of every government action should be examined, especially when it comes to restraining or coercing people into doing something.  I fail to see what's pragmatic about forcing people to work for the state and sacrifice not only the direction they want their lives to take, but potentially life itself.  If we neglect to examine the morality of government action and only stick to what appears "ideal," then we sacrifice freedom.  The government's job is to protect people from oppressors, not to become the oppressors.

Sigging this.

Thanks.

And thanks for making it look like a Ron Paul ad.

Freedom is popular!

[Secretary Polnut]

The philosophy and morality of every government action should be examined, especially when it comes to restraining or coercing people into doing something.  I fail to see what's pragmatic about forcing people to work for the state and sacrifice not only the direction they want their lives to take, but potentially life itself.  If we neglect to examine the morality of government action and only stick to what appears "ideal," then we sacrifice freedom.  The government's job is to protect people from oppressors, not to become the oppressors.

Sigging this.

Thanks.

And thanks for making it look like a Ron Paul ad.

Freedom is popular!

I still think it's cute you think Ron Paul is actually about freedom...

[crypto-fascist superhero]

The philosophy and morality of every government action should be examined, especially when it comes to restraining or coercing people into doing something.  I fail to see what's pragmatic about forcing people to work for the state and sacrifice not only the direction they want their lives to take, but potentially life itself.  If we neglect to examine the morality of government action and only stick to what appears "ideal," then we sacrifice freedom.  The government's job is to protect people from oppressors, not to become the oppressors.

Sigging this.

Thanks.

And thanks for making it look like a Ron Paul ad.

Freedom is popular!

I still think it's cute you think Ron Paul is actually about freedom...

If he weren't about freedom, he obviously wouldn't irritate the likes of certain individuals.

[Secretary Polnut]

The philosophy and morality of every government action should be examined, especially when it comes to restraining or coercing people into doing something.  I fail to see what's pragmatic about forcing people to work for the state and sacrifice not only the direction they want their lives to take, but potentially life itself.  If we neglect to examine the morality of government action and only stick to what appears "ideal," then we sacrifice freedom.  The government's job is to protect people from oppressors, not to become the oppressors.

Sigging this.

Thanks.

And thanks for making it look like a Ron Paul ad.

Freedom is popular!

I still think it's cute you think Ron Paul is actually about freedom...

If he weren't about freedom, he obviously wouldn't irritate the likes of certain individuals.

You really do think that's why he irritates people don't you?

[crypto-fascist superhero]

The philosophy and morality of every government action should be examined, especially when it comes to restraining or coercing people into doing something.  I fail to see what's pragmatic about forcing people to work for the state and sacrifice not only the direction they want their lives to take, but potentially life itself.  If we neglect to examine the morality of government action and only stick to what appears "ideal," then we sacrifice freedom.  The government's job is to protect people from oppressors, not to become the oppressors.

Sigging this.

Thanks.

And thanks for making it look like a Ron Paul ad.

Freedom is popular!

I still think it's cute you think Ron Paul is actually about freedom...

If he weren't about freedom, he obviously wouldn't irritate the likes of certain individuals.

You really do think that's why he irritates people don't you?

Obviously.  It's an extremely accurate rule of thumb that the more anti-freedom a person is, the more they dislike Ron Paul.

[Senator Napoleon]

Enough Ron Paul crap. This is Atlasia, let's talk about the threats to Atlasians' freedoms. Coughzuwocampaign

[Senator Clarence]

I posted tis in the other board but saw this one...

The anti-conscription bill in the Senate is not based in reality... every one spouts this sh**t about how the draft means lower quality men in the service- if they don't make the cut, they don't serve in uniform...period! Some one who is drafted goes thru basic training and training for their ocupational specialty and if they dont meet standards they are out of that speciality.

This bill ignores the fact that we may need the draft again at a certain point... not for something like Afgahnistan or Iraq (or- I hate to say even Vietnam) but for something like WWII. It is very interesting to see some one like you 20RP12 opposing the draft but wanting defense cuts...if we cut our military with out any sort of additional reserve component- which the population at large is- we will be weak and we will be defeated in a conflict. This isn't a health care mandate or the government forcing regulations down your throat- this is you being called to serve your country if she needs you most...more serious but far more justified

I am not in the SEnate but would love to discuss this with Napoleon and 20RP12 and others beucase I believe this is a dangerous bill...

clarence

[Governor Scott]

I posted tis in the other board but saw this one...

The anti-conscription bill in the Senate is not based in reality... every one spouts this sh**t about how the draft means lower quality men in the service- if they don't make the cut, they don't serve in uniform...period! Some one who is drafted goes thru basic training and training for their ocupational specialty and if they dont meet standards they are out of that speciality.

This bill ignores the fact that we may need the draft again at a certain point... not for something like Afgahnistan or Iraq (or- I hate to say even Vietnam) but for something like WWII. It is very interesting to see some one like you 20RP12 opposing the draft but wanting defense cuts...if we cut our military with out any sort of additional reserve component- which the population at large is- we will be weak and we will be defeated in a conflict. This isn't a health care mandate or the government forcing regulations down your throat- this is you being called to serve your country if she needs you most...more serious but far more justified

I am not in the SEnate but would love to discuss this with Napoleon and 20RP12 and others beucase I believe this is a dangerous bill...

clarence

I don't personally think that the draft means lower quality men, but only that it's better to have a purely volunteer-based military instead of a coercion-based military.

As someone who is endorsing this bill, I don't think we need a draft because I think drafts are unjust for reasons that were already stated.  And people who oppose the draft aren't necessarily against having a defense- we just feel that people should be able to decide if they enlist in the military or not.  I don't think it's fair to make that connection.  Military cuts is another issue, but I will just say that the reason why people want those cuts is because our presence is in countries that it shouldn't be.  Furthermore, conscription very much constitutes as a mandate because it involves coercing people into doing something; whether it's a good mandate or a bad mandate, it's a mandate- because if you refuse to answer that call to join, you end up in prison.

[Senator Clarence]

I posted tis in the other board but saw this one...

The anti-conscription bill in the Senate is not based in reality... every one spouts this sh**t about how the draft means lower quality men in the service- if they don't make the cut, they don't serve in uniform...period! Some one who is drafted goes thru basic training and training for their ocupational specialty and if they dont meet standards they are out of that speciality.

This bill ignores the fact that we may need the draft again at a certain point... not for something like Afgahnistan or Iraq (or- I hate to say even Vietnam) but for something like WWII. It is very interesting to see some one like you 20RP12 opposing the draft but wanting defense cuts...if we cut our military with out any sort of additional reserve component- which the population at large is- we will be weak and we will be defeated in a conflict. This isn't a health care mandate or the government forcing regulations down your throat- this is you being called to serve your country if she needs you most...more serious but far more justified

I am not in the SEnate but would love to discuss this with Napoleon and 20RP12 and others beucase I believe this is a dangerous bill...

clarence

I don't personally think that the draft means lower quality men, but only that it's better to have a purely volunteer-based military instead of a coercion-based military.

As someone who is endorsing this bill, I don't think we need a draft because I think drafts are unjust for reasons that were already stated.  And people who oppose the draft aren't necessarily against having a defense- we just feel that people should be able to decide if they enlist in the military or not.  I don't think it's fair to make that connection.  Military cuts is another issue, but I will just say that the reason why people want those cuts is because our presence is in countries that it shouldn't be.  Furthermore, conscription very much constitutes as a mandate because it involves coercing people into doing something; whether it's a good mandate or a bad mandate, it's a mandate- because if you refuse to answer that call to join, you end up in prison.

I see your point Scott and I do not think any one wants to have a weak defense... conscription is a mandate and a better amendment would be to use it in only a formal declaration of war. The defense cuts issue is related because if we cut the number of service members and cant draft then how the hell will we have the numbers we need during wartime?

[Governor Scott]

I posted tis in the other board but saw this one...

The anti-conscription bill in the Senate is not based in reality... every one spouts this sh**t about how the draft means lower quality men in the service- if they don't make the cut, they don't serve in uniform...period! Some one who is drafted goes thru basic training and training for their ocupational specialty and if they dont meet standards they are out of that speciality.

This bill ignores the fact that we may need the draft again at a certain point... not for something like Afgahnistan or Iraq (or- I hate to say even Vietnam) but for something like WWII. It is very interesting to see some one like you 20RP12 opposing the draft but wanting defense cuts...if we cut our military with out any sort of additional reserve component- which the population at large is- we will be weak and we will be defeated in a conflict. This isn't a health care mandate or the government forcing regulations down your throat- this is you being called to serve your country if she needs you most...more serious but far more justified

I am not in the SEnate but would love to discuss this with Napoleon and 20RP12 and others beucase I believe this is a dangerous bill...

clarence

I don't personally think that the draft means lower quality men, but only that it's better to have a purely volunteer-based military instead of a coercion-based military.

As someone who is endorsing this bill, I don't think we need a draft because I think drafts are unjust for reasons that were already stated.  And people who oppose the draft aren't necessarily against having a defense- we just feel that people should be able to decide if they enlist in the military or not.  I don't think it's fair to make that connection.  Military cuts is another issue, but I will just say that the reason why people want those cuts is because our presence is in countries that it shouldn't be.  Furthermore, conscription very much constitutes as a mandate because it involves coercing people into doing something; whether it's a good mandate or a bad mandate, it's a mandate- because if you refuse to answer that call to join, you end up in prison.

I see your point Scott and I do not think any one wants to have a weak defense... conscription is a mandate and a better amendment would be to use it in only a formal declaration of war. The defense cuts issue is related because if we cut the number of service members and cant draft then how the hell will we have the numbers we need during wartime?

Personally, I don't think we wouldn't have the numbers we would need during wartime (at least in the real USA), but there is little evidence to support or refute that.  Defense spending always increases when a country goes into war, but when a country is not at war with anyone, it should be able to cut spending back and remove troops from areas that they are no longer needed.  All the resources could be used for when the nation ever is in imminent danger, if necessary.

[President Marokai]

Obviously.  It's an extremely accurate rule of thumb that the more anti-freedom a person is, the more they dislike Ron Paul.

There really isn't much room for nuance in your worldview, is there?

[Senator Napoleon]

Obviously.  It's an extremely accurate rule of thumb that the more anti-freedom a person is, the more they dislike Ron Paul.

There really isn't much room for nuance in your worldview, is there?

Did you really need to revive a dead, off-topic discussion just to spread negativity?