Freedom Act of 2005

[Sam Spade]

I revised this one myself, so I'm happy with it. 

I'm curious to hear what others have to think though.

[Sam Spade]

You're welcome, MAS.

[Sam Spade]

One question: in clause 3, is a "year" a literal year, or a game year?

I don't like this imperialism stuff. Well, yes I do, but I only liking destroying countries, not fixing them.

Okay, I'm just going to ignore your comment, in that case.

Make it in Clause 3 that "each and every year" reads "each and every calendar year (12 months)"

[Sam Spade]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Also, that sentence is missing something very important, typically described as a 'verb.'

That's called a typo.  "Am" should be "An"

[Sam Spade]

If there is no other debate or questions, I move we bring this thing to a vote.

[Sam Spade]

Primary Sponsor: Senator SamSpade (UP-LA)
Co-Sponsor(s): Senator MAS117 (UP-PA)

When did MAS move to Pennsylvania?  If he did, he can't be a Senator...

Er, got me; I just copied and pasted what was in the introduction thread.

I must have copied it wrong.  Please correct.

[Sam Spade]

I'm left with too many questions.  How do we determine the "list"?

The Secretary of State determines it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If we approve a Secretary of State we trust, its accuracy should not be in question.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Secretary of State's opinion.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Policy is being left with the Secretary of State.  We are just giving him and ourselves obligations as to who we give foreign aid too (and that they can't be non-free and non-democratic countries in the determination of the Secretary of State).

If the Secretary of State determines that a country should not be on the list, he will simply put it as being "free and democratic" instead of being "not free and democratic".

Essentially, we are giving the diplomats (and the Secretary of State) carte blanche over the determination of who we shouldn't give foreign aid to.  The Senate still has control over who we give foreign aid to.

This has nothing to with free trade or these types of things, it has to with foreign aid and foreign aid only.  If it was trade, I would be against it also.

[Sam Spade]

One other thing...

Aye.

[Sam Spade]

I have to agree with Mr. Hughento here. This bill might not be recieved well by our allies in the Mideast such as Pakistan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Most of these regimes are pro-Atlasian because we give them the foreign aid needed to sustain their nations. Do you seriously believe that Egypt or Pakistan would still help us in the War on Terrorism if we stopped supporting their governments and giving them aid? While the scope of this bill is excellent and well in line with my feelings concerning the spread of democracy and liberty it may cause, as a result, less liberty and more anti-Atlasianism in the Mideast. While I do not like propping up dictators like Mubarak and Musharraf their is no way that I can see to get around this.

Can't necessarily disagree with what you're saying.  My feelings on the matter just differ.

[Sam Spade]

While the scope of this bill is excellent and well in line with my feelings concerning the spread of democracy and liberty it may cause, as a result, less liberty and more anti-Atlasianism in the Mideast.

Yeah, we're going to rebel against the Republic anytime soon because of our uber-undemocratic government.

This is the Mideast's flag, isn't it?



Looks blatantly un-democratic to me. 

[Sam Spade]

This will almost certainly end food aid to North Korea and Zimbabwe.  You can decide for yourselves if that's good or bad, and I'll keep my own view to myself as GM, but you should know that its almost certain that this bill will indirectly change policy towards those two very controversial nations.

Good. 

[Sam Spade]

This legislation is not dangerous, but down right evil in its conception.  It would take a truely heartless, twisted person to acctually advocate going through with the provisions of this bill if it were passed.

Superb.  I'm going to have to put that in my new quotables section as to things that I would like to be called. 

[Sam Spade]

Hmmm...  This bill has now been defeated. 

It is too bad to see that the Senate refuses to stand up for democracy around the world and for the freedom of others not as fortunate as we in Atlasia.

[Sam Spade]

Hmmm...  This bill has now been defeated. 

It is too bad to see that the Senate refuses to stand up for democracy around the world and for the freedom of others not as fortunate as we in Atlasia.

I think that it is a shame that you could not see the inherent weaknesses in this proposal and rather than agknowledging that you could make some changes, you choose to lash out and make claims that you know to be false.  You will notice that you did not propose a single ammendment to make this more palatable.

I did not lash out, I am just making accurate comments.

I was open to changes, though I still don't think any are necessary.

No one suggested any amendments or anything to me. 

Instead I got comments like the following:

"This legislation is not dangerous, but downright evil in its conception. It would take a truly heartless, twisted person to actually advocate going through with the provisions of this bill if it were passed."

[Sam Spade]

This legislation now has enough votes to fail; senators now have 24 hours to change their mind.

It is too bad to see that the Senate refuses to stand up for democracy around the world and for the freedom of others not as fortunate as we in Atlasia.

If you can prove to me that this bill will do what it's intending to do without endangering millions of lives who may depend on foreign aid to their countries to survive, then I'll vote in favor of it if you reintroduce it.  If you can't, then you have the reason why I voted against this bill.  I was not voting against the bill's purpose; I was voting against what I perceived as being its likely effect.

This bill is now officially dead.  Let's get onto something else.

[Sam Spade]

No one suggested any amendments or anything to me. 

That doesn't matter.  You will notice that during the discussions of the "Unwed Mothers Bills" I acctually porposed amendments to the bill based of of others often unhelpful and scathing suggestions.

Yes, and after the rejection of the bill by the SC, you refused to fix the rather simple things that needed to be fixed on that bill in order to make it constitutionally valid. (such as federal control over regional jurisdiction, etc.)

My opinion is to just let this bill live or die in its present form, which I have done.

[Sam Spade]

I just realized that I never officially announced anything, so...

With six votes against to two in favor, this bill has failed.

As I said before, if you can show me that this will not result in hundreds of thousands or millions dying of starvation, I will vote for it.  Don't take it personally.

PS:

I agree with the Honorable Senator from...Utah, right?

Yes, that would be me.

Nah, I'm not taking it personally at all.