Labor Party Fall 2014 Convention - San Francisco, CA - ENDORSEMENTS/PLATFORM

[Talleyrand]

Will Labor include a plank in it's platform condemning the President's nomination of noted-anti gay rights activist Hifly as SoEA?  I'm not trying to make trouble or anything, I'm just trying to figure out what to make of this.  I haven't been here in awhile so maybe things have changed, but I seem to recall a number of Laborites being well to even my left on marriage-related issues.  So I hope you'll forgive me if I'm rather perplexed by the current Labor President, DemPGH, nominating Atlasia's most infamous opponent of marriage equality (my apologies to Senator JCL, but he is no longer Atlasia's chief opponent of marriage equality ) to the cabinet shortly after the latter rammed through the Mideast Assembly a bill that would've forced public schools to indoctrinate our children with reprehensible homophobic propaganda.  

Anyway, I was just hoping someone could clarify the Labor Party's position on marriage equality for me.  Was there some seismic shift while I was gone that caused Labor to become an anti-gay rights party?  It seems kind of weird that a party that includes prominent supporters of legalizing group marriage, polygamy, and incest would decide same-sex marriage is the issue where they decide to tack in a more socially conservative direction, but there you go, I guess.  Or do you guys still support marriage equality for our nation's LGBT community?  I'm sorry to have to ask this if the Labor Party does still supports marriage equality, but I just want to make sure I don't have to worry about Senator JCL filling a Supreme Court vacancy or something

Parties generally don't include their opposition to individual presidential nominations in their platforms, so no, of course not. Many members, including myself, will continue to strongly oppose Hifly.

Labor as a party has spearheaded the movement for marriage rights in Atlasia, including extending spousal rights to group marriages and marriages born of incest, so your question seems quite odd in light of that.

I suggest you read up a little on what's actually going on in Atlasia before trying to make passive-aggressive attacks grounded in fictions diametrically opposed to reality.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Labor's chairman is gay. I'm gay. Our Midwest Governor is the most gay. You have nothing to worry about, X. I promise on all of my gayness.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Will Labor include a plank in it's platform condemning the President's nomination of noted-anti gay rights activist Hifly as SoEA?  I'm not trying to make trouble or anything, I'm just trying to figure out what to make of this.  I haven't been here in awhile so maybe things have changed, but I seem to recall a number of Laborites being well to even my left on marriage-related issues.  So I hope you'll forgive me if I'm rather perplexed by the current Labor President, DemPGH, nominating Atlasia's most infamous opponent of marriage equality (my apologies to Senator JCL, but he is no longer Atlasia's chief opponent of marriage equality ) to the cabinet shortly after the latter rammed through the Mideast Assembly a bill that would've forced public schools to indoctrinate our children with reprehensible homophobic propaganda.  

Anyway, I was just hoping someone could clarify the Labor Party's position on marriage equality for me.  Was there some seismic shift while I was gone that caused Labor to become an anti-gay rights party?  It seems kind of weird that a party that includes prominent supporters of legalizing group marriage, polygamy, and incest would decide same-sex marriage is the issue where they decide to tack in a more socially conservative direction, but there you go, I guess.  Or do you guys still support marriage equality for our nation's LGBT community?  I'm sorry to have to ask this if the Labor Party does still supports marriage equality, but I just want to make sure I don't have to worry about Senator JCL filling a Supreme Court vacancy or something

Parties generally don't include their opposition to individual presidential nominations in their platforms, so no, of course not. Many members, including myself, will continue to strongly oppose Hifly.

Labor as a party has spearheaded the movement for marriage rights in Atlasia, including extending spousal rights to group marriages and marriages born of incest, so your question seems quite odd in light of that.

I suggest you read up a little on what's actually going on in Atlasia before trying to make passive-aggressive attacks grounded in fictions diametrically opposed to reality.

Thank you for answering my question.  I'm not really sure how that was an attack though, passive-agressive or otherwise.  Normally, I'd have gone and read more, but when I saw Hifly was being appointed, the "What the Inks" meter went off-charts, so to speak.  I simply posted that out of confusion in the first Labor-oriented place I found.  I know you guys get a lot of flack from a lot of folks (some fair, some not), but not *everyone* is out to get you (at least not all the time ).

[Adam Griffin]

Labor's chairman is gay. I'm gay. Our Midwest Governor is the most gay. You have nothing to worry about, X. I promise on all of my gayness.

Thank God we have all of these breeders here to inform us what's best for us!

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Is the Radical Gay Agenda alive and well? I haven't heard much about it these days, and that bothers me.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Labor's chairman is gay. I'm gay. Our Midwest Governor is the most gay. You have nothing to worry about, X. I promise on all of my gayness.

Thank God we have all of these breeders here to inform us what's best for us!

Breeders?  Is that supposed to be a psuedo-derogatory term for heterosexuals or...?  I'm not even sure what you're trying to argue/say in this post

[Adam Griffin]

[BYL] Here are the proposed by-laws for the Labor Party. Several modifications have been made to streamline the office; areas that are proposed to be eliminated have been stricken, while added areas are bolded/in red.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Barnes]

Labor's chairman is gay. I'm gay. Our Midwest Governor is the most gay. You have nothing to worry about, X. I promise on all of my gayness.

Believe me, the list is more extensive than that!

But anyway, the idea that we somehow support hifly simply because we don't actively condemn him in our party's political platform is ludicrous.  The Labor Party platform is very explicit about where our party stands on LGBT+ rights and that should settle the matter.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Labor's chairman is gay. I'm gay. Our Midwest Governor is the most gay. You have nothing to worry about, X. I promise on all of my gayness.

Believe me, the list is more extensive than that!

But anyway, the idea that we somehow support hifly simply because we don't actively condemn him in our party's political platform is ludicrous.  The Labor Party platform is very explicit about where our party stands on LGBT+ rights and that should settle the matter.

So I take it you'll sign a petition opposing his nomination.  If the Labor Party truly is the party of marriage equality, one would expect that more than...well...zero Laborites would've signed the petition

[Barnes]

Labor's chairman is gay. I'm gay. Our Midwest Governor is the most gay. You have nothing to worry about, X. I promise on all of my gayness.

Believe me, the list is more extensive than that!

But anyway, the idea that we somehow support hifly simply because we don't actively condemn him in our party's political platform is ludicrous.  The Labor Party platform is very explicit about where our party stands on LGBT+ rights and that should settle the matter.

So I take it you'll sign a petition opposing his nomination.  If the Labor Party truly is the party of marriage equality, one would expect that more than...well...zero Laborites would've signed the petition

Seeing as all of one person two people has signed your petition, I think your qualms might rest with the broader population of Atlasia rather then Labor.  

I also think you'll find that every major political party supports marriage equality in Atlasia - it hasn't really been a defining issue for anyone for years and years.

I, obviously, oppose hifly's position on most everything, but that discussion isn't really relevant here and as I said, these issues are settled by the Labor platform which is party policy.

EDIT: I see that you've signed that as well.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Labor's chairman is gay. I'm gay. Our Midwest Governor is the most gay. You have nothing to worry about, X. I promise on all of my gayness.

Believe me, the list is more extensive than that!

But anyway, the idea that we somehow support hifly simply because we don't actively condemn him in our party's political platform is ludicrous.  The Labor Party platform is very explicit about where our party stands on LGBT+ rights and that should settle the matter.

So I take it you'll sign a petition opposing his nomination.  If the Labor Party truly is the party of marriage equality, one would expect that more than...well...zero Laborites would've signed the petition

Seeing as all of one person has signed your petition, I think your qualms might rest with the broader population of Atlasia rather then Labor. 

I also think you'll find that every major political party supports marriage equality in Atlasia - it hasn't really been a defining issue for anyone for years and years.

I, obviously, oppose hifly's position on most everything, but that discussion isn't really relevant here and as I said, these issues are settled by the Labor platform which is party policy.

One person, thus far, but I have absolute confidence the people of Atlasia will ultimately fight against Mideast Speaker and noted Concentration Camp guard defender Hifly.  As for Labor, I have been personally been told by a number of Laborites who shall go unnamed that they are reluctant to sign for fear of political retaliation from certain individuals in the party.  I'm not saying they were threatened or anything, but clearly there is a concern among some about political retribution.  I've heard a lot of "I'll sign, but only if another Laborite does first" type comments as well. 

I'll admit that I may've over-estimated the political courage of certain Laborites.  I guess I figured people would be willing to stand against a vehemently homophobic defender of SS guards, but I guess that may be asking to much these days   However, color me unimpressed by your claims to oppose what Hifly stands for.  At the end of the day, talk is cheap.  It's action that matters!  Sadly, all anyone in Labor has offered so far has been...well...talk.  Hopefully, you guys will prove me wrong on that score.

[Barnes]

I don't really understand how you think that someone not signing your specific protest makes them a support of hifly, and as you quote "unnamed sources" it's of little relevance.  Anyway, as I'll say for the third time, our party's position on this issue is clear, my position on this issue is clear as a rainbow and I don't think anything can be gained by cluttering up the convention thread any further.

[Adam Griffin]

Any and all Laborites are perfectly free to sign your blatant political stunt of a petition if they so choose; nobody is telling anyone to do otherwise. Perhaps it has more to do with the messenger than the message.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I don't really understand how you think that someone not signing your specific protest makes them a support of hifly, and as you quote "unnamed sources" it's of little relevance.  Anyway, as I'll say for the third time, our party's position on this issue is clear, my position on this issue is clear as a rainbow and I don't think anything can be gained by cluttering up the convention thread any further.

I'll put it bluntly, if you won't call out Hifly (of all people) for his homophobic and anti-semetic views, it's that much less likely you'll condemn it when it is someone who is credible expresses such sentiments.  Honestly, I don't know how much clearer I can be.  I realize some people don't want to risk angering party bosses.  However, leadership is about doing the right thing even when it is not the politically expedient thing.  It's a shame no one in Labor has, thus far been willing to show real leadership on this issue.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Any and all Laborites are perfectly free to sign your blatant political stunt of a petition if they so choose; nobody is telling anyone to do otherwise. Perhaps it has more to do with the messenger than the message.

  As I said before, talk is cheap.  If you support Hifly's views or are not willing to risk political fallout, fine, but at least have the dignity to admit it.  Actions speak louder than words and labor's lack of any sort of meaningful action speaks volumes.

[Adam Griffin]

I don't really understand how you think that someone not signing your specific protest makes them a support of hifly, and as you quote "unnamed sources" it's of little relevance.  Anyway, as I'll say for the third time, our party's position on this issue is clear, my position on this issue is clear as a rainbow and I don't think anything can be gained by cluttering up the convention thread any further.

I'll put it bluntly, if you won't call out Hifly (of all people) for his homophobic and anti-semetic views, it's that much less likely you'll condemn it when it is someone who is credible expresses such sentiments.  Honestly, I don't know how much clearer I can be.  I realize some people don't want to risk angering party bosses.  However, leadership is about doing the right thing even when it is not the politically expedient thing.  It's a shame no one in Labor has, thus far been willing to show real leadership on this issue.

We were the ones who brought the original issue to the forefront in the first place and led the charge for the bill to be vetoed. Sometimes, a separation of situations is necessary in this game. Should we continue to hold against you the fact that you've rage-quit on at least one occasion, or assume that you'll be incapable of holding elected office in the future because you resigned from one in the past, or should all parties fear you because you changed your political affiliation no fewer than four times over the span of a few months? Something tells me you'd ask for immunity and reconsideration in such situations.

If you spent half as much time trying to contribute to the game as you did spinning one way or another in order to take advantage of what is seemingly most popular at the moment, I might be willing to indulge in what you're doing. Unfortunately, all I see is a messenger trying to take advantage of a situation for his own reasoning, much of which has nothing to do with the actual subject. In other words: get someone with some principle to do what you're doing, and I'll support it.

[Barnes]

I have no opposition to any of the proposed changes.  I've put a few of my own forward - they're highlighted in orange to avoid confusion.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I don't really understand how you think that someone not signing your specific protest makes them a support of hifly, and as you quote "unnamed sources" it's of little relevance.  Anyway, as I'll say for the third time, our party's position on this issue is clear, my position on this issue is clear as a rainbow and I don't think anything can be gained by cluttering up the convention thread any further.

I'll put it bluntly, if you won't call out Hifly (of all people) for his homophobic and anti-semetic views, it's that much less likely you'll condemn it when it is someone who is credible expresses such sentiments.  Honestly, I don't know how much clearer I can be.  I realize some people don't want to risk angering party bosses.  However, leadership is about doing the right thing even when it is not the politically expedient thing.  It's a shame no one in Labor has, thus far been willing to show real leadership on this issue.

We were the ones who brought the original issue to the forefront in the first place and led the charge for the bill to be vetoed. Sometimes, a separation of situations is necessary in this game. Should we continue to hold against you the fact that you've rage-quit on at least one occasion, or assume that you'll be incapable of holding elected office in the future because you resigned from one in the past, or should all parties fear you because you changed your political affiliation no fewer than four times over the span of a few months? Something tells me you'd ask for immunity and reconsideration in such situations.

If you spent half as much time trying to contribute to the game as you did spinning one way or another in order to take advantage of what is seemingly most popular at the moment, I might be willing to indulge in what you're doing. Unfortunately, all I see is a messenger trying to take advantage of a situation for his own reasoning, much of which has nothing to do with the actual subject. In other words: get someone with some principle to do what you're doing, and I'll support it.

I have never rage-quit the game, so we can get that smear out of the way first off.  I did quit once because I was upset about losing a friend because of his disappointing behavior in the game, but I'd hardly call that rage-quiting.  You should hold against me the fact that I've resigned from multiple offices.  That's why I'm not running for office now or at any point in the foreseeable future and you can hold me to that.  I'm willing to serve in appointed positions, but that's it.  That's what you do when you really care about helping the game, you put what's best for it ahead of your interests.  I know this is an alien concept for you, but try to bare with me.

I left the Liberal Party because it'd become a shameless personality cult with one of the worst posters (Wolfentoad) Atlasia has ever seen at its rotting core.  I didn't leave TPP, the party dissolved.  I left Labor because TPP came back.  By the way, that's three times, if you're gonna stoop to smears at least get the numbers right

As for the question of principles, forgive me if I chuckle at someone who has proudly referred to himself as a "hack" talking about principles.  I have plenty and anyone who knows me knows that much is true.  Odd as it may sound, your problem is that you adhere to rigidly to principle.  That is not a bad thing in-and-of-itself, but you have only one principle: Labor dominance.  You'll eagerly sacrifice integrity, ideological values, anything at all for partisan political gain.  I will say that I believe you'd happily "indulge" what I'm doing, but only if it was of clear political benefit to Labor.  Anyway, I didn't mean to hijack your convention, so I'll have to end this little exchange.

[Barnes]

^ Alright, can you please leave this thread now? You're at perfect liberty to continue this conversation somewhere else, but seeing as you are neither a Labor Party member, nor are we discussing policy at this moment, this is not the place.  Seeing as you created a nice thread about all of this, I'm sure that would be a much better depository for your posts.

[Adam Griffin]

You went bananas, challenged Napoleon to a duel, then quit before it happened, so that's not a smear. And you (attempted?) to deregister twice, and you had 4 registration flips in 6.5 months (not 6 months; excuse my poor estimation skills).

Mr. X
The People's Party
Ohio

X
Ohio
Labor

X
Independent
Ohio

Mr. X
Deregistered

Mr. X
Ohio
Independent

Mr. X
Labor
Ohio

Mr. X
Labor
New York

Mr. X
The People's Party
New York

Malcolm X
Deregistered

I bring it up merely as an example and a reminder, so you may understand in your own perspective what it's like to be judged in one situation about things you did in another (for which I'm a bit sensitive; see my GM nominations). Also, I don't have principles but yet I adhere to them too strongly, according to your own words? Sorry for looking out for my family in this game, the bond of which is based on loyalty to our values and one another, rather than popularity with every external faction (perhaps that's why you never fit in). Though I have to say...had I taken the same constantly morphing path as you in managing Labor, we'd probably have 7-8 Senators right now - all of whom would be obsessed with how many people like them and how often they could appear contrarian to the voters that elected them.

And yes, Barnes is right:

[Adam Griffin]

...

Couldn't include Barnes' quote/proposed alterations; max character limit.

Section 1: I have no objections to that.
Section 2: Appears to just be rewording; no objections.
Section 3: No objections; mere clarification.
Section 5: No objections to the first part; in regards to the other officers, we actually tried this in the past to a degree while you were gone and the results were rather...paltry. I think it'd be best to keep officer creation centralized and conservatively used, but that's just my opinion.
Section 7: In regards to proposed 1-d: I think this would be redundant, as the option for the candidate in question to even run in a primary wouldn't be there.

[Barnes]

With Section 5, the idea is if there is ever a need in the future to do such a thing, that would be the process to follow.  I don't see the process being used much, but I think it's good to have a procedure laid out, and the requirement that the other members of the Politburo be informed.

For 1-d in Section 7, it really is there just for absolute clarity.  That way there's a comprehensive list of all the possible ways to not have an automatic endorsement; but it's not crucial.

[free my dawg]

We were the ones who brought the original issue to the forefront in the first place and led the charge for the bill to be vetoed.

Yet you still attacked me for calling DemPGH out on it. Quite frankly I'm disgusted that you would think that Hifly should be anywhere near any public office, let alone a Cabinet position.

[Adam Griffin]

We were the ones who brought the original issue to the forefront in the first place and led the charge for the bill to be vetoed.

Yet you still attacked me for calling DemPGH out on it. Quite frankly I'm disgusted that you would think that Hifly should be anywhere near any public office, let alone a Cabinet position.

You're late to the party, and have completely missed the target as to what I said, so whatever. I don't think most of the game should be anywhere near any public office, but if I lived by that creed, then I'd be SOL, now wouldn't I? I'm sensitive to the fact that people who are nominated for any position should have a fair trial in front of the Senate; perhaps you're not familiar with why I take such a stance. Maybe you should apply for the job (since no one else did, and that's why he was nominated at all) if you want to make a difference, because your grand-standing isn't going to change one god-damned thing as to whether the nominee is pulled or whether there's a confirmation hearing.

[free my dawg]

Uncle Aaron continues to miss the point again. If you actually paid a decent amount of attention to Northeastern politics,  you'll see the legislation I've proposed, and I have faith that Speaker SWE will introduce it to a vote soon. I'm just saying - I'd expect you, especially considering your preference, to flagrantly speak out against it. Not make lukewarm statements about how you helped kill the Mideast Hate Bill while dismissing valid concerns about his bigotry as "IRC derping and trololoing" (which seems to be a common theme of yours recently).