Senate Protest and Analysis Thread

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Resolution Compelling the President to Appoint a New GM

Whereas, the position of Game Moderator is necessary for the full function of the Senate; and,

Whereas, President bgwah's current GM, Ebowed, has proven sporadic and ineffective in his position; and,

Whereas, the Senate, by statute and subsequent motion, has dismissed GM Ebowed from his office; therefore let it be

RESOLVED, that the Senate hereby calls upon the President to exercise all due haste in nominating for Atlasia a new GM to be confirmed or denied by the Senate.

Good to see you are still pressing this, PS. It will be tough to break bgwah though.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

A question for Purple State

I don't see how the Economic Zones are a liberal idea especially in the European form as you said? Could you clarify, how this contitutes that type of thing?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

A question for Purple State

I don't see how the Economic Zones are a liberal idea especially in the European form as you said? Could you clarify, how this contitutes that type of thing?

It is may use the best friends of conservatives (tax cuts), but it is messing with the market to preference and advantage disadvantaged regions. It builds equality of opportunity, but it is nothing near to a free market. So I support it, but I'm surprised the more conservative voters do.

Well the idea was heavilly supported by the late great Jack Kemp. I think it is a wonderfull idea to help economically depressed areas of country by encouraging entrepreneurship and innovation in those areas. The only alternative is essentially create a culture of generational welfare in these areas. Most Conservatives prefer welfare to be a termporary safety net not a livelihood. Thats why conservatives support such a thing. Its not just a problem in the inner cities but in Appalachia and other rural areas as well.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

On behalf of the President:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Co-Sponsor: MaxQue

Time to surprise the hell out of everyone, but I would vote for this provided four things are changed or added.


1. The Buy Atlasion Provisions are removed. We don't need Smoot-Hawley 2.0 thank you. As soon as this hits the floor I will offer an amendment to do just that.

2. The Auto Recovery section is modified so as to work more within the Private Sector and not be a Gov't takeover.

3. More Federal Loans to help people buy homes, cars, start business, and get an education. Primarily the first three. Finally in terms of businesses, loans to help the existing and new start ups make payroll, and thus avoid layoffs.

4. The Corporate Tax rate should be reduced to 25% which would match our exorbinant rate with foriegn rates on Business. Make competations easier, and reduce outsourcing. I will however not be so demanding on this one to the point that is absence from the bill will not prevent me from voting for it.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Sorry, I'll vote against the bill should any effort to remove the 'Buy Atlasian' provision be removed. We need something to stimulate the manufacturing sector which has been on the decline for decades, and outsourcing most, if not all, of our materials isn't an Atlasian stimulus, it's a Chinese stimulus. As for 3 and 4, I'm sure we can work together on something there.

However, I do think that temporary nationalization of the Atlasian auto companies is the best course of action, for a variety of reasons.

There you go again Senator ignoring the negative consequences of your own actions. Those provisions risk a trade war at a time when our exports are falling and contributing to the growing unemployement, it would be the height of irresponsibility to pursue such a course. The Global economy is slumping and so there needs to be stimulus worldwide. The idea that you can isolate our economy would lead to a permenent Depression. Indeed the Smoot Hawley passed in 1930 jacked up tariff rates, a trade war ensued after which our exports plunged and Depression grew deeper. You want to help Manufacturing then invest in Technology, make our tax rates competative with foriegn manufacturers, and stop letting Unions drive them into the ground.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Okay Marokai,

1. The reason I said you ignored the consequences of your actions was because 3 times last night you in fact did, on this, the LGBT Free Trade Act Amendment, and the Credit card interest rate caps. It seems you prefer feel-good legislation that looks good on paper, but is counterproductive to the desired goals.

2. How do you "know" what level of protectionism foreign countries will accept before they respond in kind? Some of these countries have political leaders that are in a very unstable position and may very well respond to populist demands for greater protectionism over the slightest of provocations. Atlasia should take the lead in shirking of these irresponsible populist demands, and not succumb to it.

3. I will agree that the trade deficit is a definate problem, however, right now, exports are falling off a cliff, and so is domestic demand as well. So lets say a wave of Protectionist policies across the world are established, the effect on Manufacturing would be the exact opposite of what you expect this bill to do.  Of course, you have a history of counterproductive bills and proposals, that hurt the very people you try to help. Last night this was proven on two different issues. You are playing a very dangerous game and you are gambling with the jobs of millions of Atlasians.

4. I understand the need for self sufficiency, but protectionism is not the way to do it, finding ways to help them compete is.

5. I never called for doing nothing to help the Big three automakers. I said we should work to help them within the market place. What about the Foreign manufacturers in the South, how are they going to compete with three gov't owned companies that can run up whatever debts they want to on taxpayer dime, and have a Gov't giving them other unfair advantages as well(Over other companies that employ Atlasians). Management has been incompetant, I don't deny thats the cause of most of the problems. I also have no problems with unions in general, indeed I think unions can be very beneficial to keep management in check at times. However I feel the in the past the UAW among others have been more concerned with there political influence then the needs of there members.

6. I never called for taking a hatchet to the corporate tax rate. What I would like to see done is the removal of most deductions and exemptions and lower the overall rate to 25% in increments over a few years. This will simplify a complex tax code, bring down the overall rates to competative levels, encourage business activity and reduce unfair advanteages giving to several companies through the influence of lobbyist. I said that this could rate, and I am willing to make some kind of deal to get this done.

7. What did you expect from someone like Brandon? I don't think he is acting out of partisanship, but out of wisdom that has come with age. Its not like he created the recession just to hurt Lief, Ebowed first began reporting it last year. I think he two can see that your policies are very counterproductive as well, and I think he is being very realistic in reporting the results. I am sure everyone will be unhappy with the news, he will be reporting, eventually myself included. But this is a game and you can't always be the winner.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

     Since the thread has been opened for debating this bill, how about you two take it there?

I beleive I already did.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Sorry, I'll vote against the bill should any effort to remove the 'Buy Atlasian' provision be removed. We need something to stimulate the manufacturing sector which has been on the decline for decades, and outsourcing most, if not all, of our materials isn't an Atlasian stimulus, it's a Chinese stimulus. As for 3 and 4, I'm sure we can work together on something there.

However, I do think that temporary nationalization of the Atlasian auto companies is the best course of action, for a variety of reasons.

Most of those jobs aren't coming back, no matter what you do. When you can pay a Chinese man far less to do the same job. Interestingly, the Japanese and Korean car companies have many factories in the south, where there aren't strong unions. If you remove the UAW union's power, then the American companies can build plants in cheaper areas.

Does no one read what I post?

I didn't at the time. However, you may be right.

By the way, why should Ford be bought by the government? Lately they've been a very competent company, with many cars rivaling Japanese cars in quality. They have paid off many of their debts as well.

I'm fine with just nationalizing GM, if people could accept that.

What about Chrysler?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As per my campaign pomise, I introduce this on behalf of Fmr Senator and current Lt Gov. South Park Conservative.

Don't sound too happy about it Yank.

I am not.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I want to introduce Free Trade bills for Indonesia, Taiwan and the UAE. But seperatly or all as one? I'm asking Senators opinions on this.

No fair, I was going to do Taiwan.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

NC Yank, you make the market very happy today. Financial indicators up later.

If I recall the DOW went up 400 points when the first Tarp plan was unveiled and then it tanked 700 points when it failed in the House vote. Off course back then the DOW was still hoovering around 11,000 even when all that raucous ended in early October.

Usually I make everyone depressed, usually thats my number one goal also.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

A Senator should probably introduce this.

Senate Rules Correction Resolution

1. Article VIII, Section 1, Clause 2 is amended to the following:

"2. Any Senator shall have seventy-two (72) hours from such a public statement by the PPT and the President of the Senate to call for a resolution in the Senate to overrule the PPT and the President of the Senate in the use of powers designated by Clause 1 of this Article, if any Senator considers their decision to be on infringement of the intention of this resolution."

2. Article VIII, Section 1, Clause 3 is amended to the following:

"3. If this resolution passes by a two-thirds (2/3) vote in the affirmative (excluding the PPT), this joint action by the PPT and the President of the Senate shall be overruled."

3. Article IX, Section 1, Clause 2 is amended to the following:

"2. Following the swearing in of the new Senate at the beginning of each Session, the President of the Senate shall open a thread in the Fantasy Government board for Senators to announce their candidacy for the position of PPT. This thread shall be further known in this document as the PPT Candidacy Declaration Thread and shall be open for forty-eight (48) hours for Senators to declare their candidacy for the position."

4. Article IX, Section 1, Clause 3 is amended to the following:

"3. After forty-eight (48) hours, the PPT Candidacy Declaration Thread shall be closed and a vote on the election of the new PPT shall be opened in a new thread by the President of the Senate. This vote shall last for a maximum of five (5) days during which time the Senators must vote. Any and all Senators who do not vote will be considered to have abstained."

Its taken care of.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Senator Marokai's Bow Chicka Bow Wow Act;

1. All individuals 14 years of age or older shall have the right to buy, possess, and view pornography depicting only persons of 18 years of age or older

May be, for good or bad, unecessary due to the Liberalisation of Sex Laws Act

https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Liberalization_of_Sex_Laws_Act

Obviously, unecessary bill. Marokai, please withdraw that bill to no lose our time, thanks.

When I was digging through the statutes on the wiki a few days ago I noticed that disgusting piece of trash. Time to repeal or amend it if you ask me.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Please do not withdraw it. I'd like to amend it to eliminate a minimum age entirely.

For gods sake, why?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Please do not withdraw it. I'd like to amend it to eliminate a minimum age entirely.

I'm not going to, I was going to suggest doing the same thing, so it still serves a purpose.

And I thought I was the only insane one around here, I am feeling much better knowing I am not.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Please do not withdraw it. I'd like to amend it to eliminate a minimum age entirely.

For gods sake, why?

Why not? It's a victimless crime.

Ah no its not. I consider the fools that submit themselves to being photographed in such a way are victims. The idiot who looks at it is also the victim. Just because people want to do something doesn't mean we should let them if its "victimless". I seem to remember a bill not two long ago where the same arguement I made here was being made by my opponents on this.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Senator Marokai's Bow Chicka Bow Wow Act;

1. All individuals 14 years of age or older shall have the right to buy, possess, and view pornography depicting only persons of 18 years of age or older

May be, for good or bad, unecessary due to the Liberalisation of Sex Laws Act

https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Liberalization_of_Sex_Laws_Act

Obviously, unecessary bill. Marokai, please withdraw that bill to no lose our time, thanks.

When I was digging through the statutes on the wiki a few days ago I noticed that disgusting piece of trash. Time to repeal or amend it if you ask me.

The problem is then some 14-18 years old paid for that. We can't force them to delete something they bought legally. That is not right.

Why not?. If they already purchased the stuff legally, then they would be grandfathered in.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Please do not withdraw it. I'd like to amend it to eliminate a minimum age entirely.

For gods sake, why?

Why not? It's a victimless crime.

Ah no its not. I consider the fools that submit themselves to being photographed in such a way are victims. The idiot who looks at it is also the victim. Just because people want to do something doesn't mean we should let them if its "victimless". I seem to remember a bill not two long ago where the same arguement I made here was being made by my opponents on this.

And why should a 12 year old boy not be allowed to look at nude women (or men) if he wants to? He or his parents should be making these decisions, not the state.

Any parent who lets a 12 year old look at a nude women needs to have there children taken away and put in protective custody, and they should be punished severely.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Please do not withdraw it. I'd like to amend it to eliminate a minimum age entirely.

For gods sake, why?

Why not? It's a victimless crime.

Ah no its not. I consider the fools that submit themselves to being photographed in such a way are victims. The idiot who looks at it is also the victim. Just because people want to do something doesn't mean we should let them if its "victimless". I seem to remember a bill not two long ago where the same arguement I made here was being made by my opponents on this.

And why should a 12 year old boy not be allowed to look at nude women (or men) if he wants to? He or his parents should be making these decisions, not the state.

I would support a bill that would just keep them from buying it. If their parents think they can have it, they can buy it for them. I'm not sure if you should make looking at it "illegal" though.

Well I would prefer to make all porn illegal for everyone, but thats not practical wih Senate lacking moral fiber. For now illegalisng the sale to minors would be a good start.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Please do not withdraw it. I'd like to amend it to eliminate a minimum age entirely.

For gods sake, why?

Why not? It's a victimless crime.

Ah no its not. I consider the fools that submit themselves to being photographed in such a way are victims. The idiot who looks at it is also the victim. Just because people want to do something doesn't mean we should let them if its "victimless". I seem to remember a bill not two long ago where the same arguement I made here was being made by my opponents on this.

And why should a 12 year old boy not be allowed to look at nude women (or men) if he wants to? He or his parents should be making these decisions, not the state.

Any parent who lets a 12 year old look at a nude women needs to have there children taken away and put in protective custody, and they should be punished severely.

I didn't know you hated freedom and like the nanny state so much

Well I did say I would support a $12.50 minimum wage yesterday.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Please do not withdraw it. I'd like to amend it to eliminate a minimum age entirely.

For gods sake, why?

Why not? It's a victimless crime.

Ah no its not. I consider the fools that submit themselves to being photographed in such a way are victims. The idiot who looks at it is also the victim. Just because people want to do something doesn't mean we should let them if its "victimless". I seem to remember a bill not two long ago where the same arguement I made here was being made by my opponents on this.

And why should a 12 year old boy not be allowed to look at nude women (or men) if he wants to? He or his parents should be making these decisions, not the state.

I would support a bill that would just keep them from buying it. If their parents think they can have it, they can buy it for them. I'm not sure if you should make looking at it "illegal" though.

Well I would prefer to make all porn illegal for everyone, but thats not practical wih Senate lacking moral fiber. For now illegalisng the sale to minors would be a good start.

Why settle for that? Let's ban sex outright.

I am a Moderate remember. Just Banning Sex before marriage will do.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Please do not withdraw it. I'd like to amend it to eliminate a minimum age entirely.

For gods sake, why?

Why not? It's a victimless crime.

Ah no its not. I consider the fools that submit themselves to being photographed in such a way are victims. The idiot who looks at it is also the victim. Just because people want to do something doesn't mean we should let them if its "victimless". I seem to remember a bill not two long ago where the same arguement I made here was being made by my opponents on this.

And why should a 12 year old boy not be allowed to look at nude women (or men) if he wants to? He or his parents should be making these decisions, not the state.

I would support a bill that would just keep them from buying it. If their parents think they can have it, they can buy it for them. I'm not sure if you should make looking at it "illegal" though.

Well I would prefer to make all porn illegal for everyone, but thats not practical wih Senate lacking moral fiber. For now illegalisng the sale to minors would be a good start.

Why settle for that? Let's ban sex outright.

I am a Moderate remember. Just Banning Sex before marriage will do.

Oh I see that I'm going to have fun with this bill

Did you honestly think it would pass quitely?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Cabinet Restructuring Act 2009

Pre-amble

The Senate recognises the recent legislative changes that have taken place and the potential effects and opportunities therein.

Section 1.
a. The post of Secretary for Health and Social Affairs is therefore established to be filled in accordance with existing Senate procedure.
b. The Secretary for Health and Social Affairs shall be responsible for the following portfolios; Health, Education, Welfare and Housing and in addition any other briefs conferred upon the Secretary by the President.

Section 2.
a. The post of Secretary of the Treasury is therefore established to be filled in accordance with existing Senate procedure.
b. The Secretary of the Treasury shall be responsible for the following portfolios; Taxation, Social Security, budgetary concerns and in addition any other briefs conferred upon the Secretary by the President.
c. The Secretary of the Treasury shall, with the assistance of the Game Moderator, be required to address the Senate once each session on the state of the economy and public expenditure.

I applaud the Senator for introducing this bill. We definately need a better economic framework for the country. I have one question. Are these playable or non playable?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Amendment to the OSPR regarding Parliamentary Behaviour

Article 8; Senate Behaviour is hereby added to the OSPR and subsequent sections re-numbered accordingly.

Article 8: Senate Behaviour is to read as follows:

Improper behaviour and the use of unparliamentary language by Senators is hereby forbidden in all Senate debates and votes.

Section 1: Improper Behaviour

1. Improper behavior is defined as personal attacks on other Senators, blatantly false accusations, and lewd conduct.
2. Improper behavior during legislative debate in the Senate shall result in suspension from that chamber at the PPT's request.
3. The conditions of the suspension shall be determined at the PPT's discretion.
4. Following the PPT's decision on the matter, atleast three other Senators must then sign a certification of suspension from the chamber.

Section 2: Unparliamentary language

1. The words 'liar', 'asshole', 'jerk', 'pig', 'swine', 'coward' and 'traitor' are hereby considered to be unparliamentary language and shall not be used in any Senate debates and votes.
2. Use of the aforementioned words by a Senator shall result in a reminder of parliamentary etiquette by the PPT.
3. Further breaches of the terms in this Section by a Senator shall result in consequences to be determined by the PPT at such time.
4. Additional words can be added or words can be removed from the above list at any time by any Senator.

Might I ask why this is important, and what instances have made this necessary? Clause 4 section 2 could easily lend itself to being unfairly politicized and abused. The whole idea of "Suspension" from the chamber seems ludacris and unnecessary. Seems like it would consitute the denial of a constitutency's constitutional right to representation on votes and debates, especially when it comes to regional senators. Such a thing should only occur if a Senator is expelled or the seat is declared vacant. Expulsion is too severe for the standards for punishment in this legislation in my opinion.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I don't really like it either, to be honest. But people should've known I'd hate it considering..

lol

You becoming cautious to the point that you are no longer out spoken would be a sheer trajedy, the Senate would be very boring indeed.