Pacific Legislature Official Thread

[WMS]

Something "almost" happened, that means it didn't. Relax. What exactly happened in December, anyway?

You know what you have to do for New Mexico to join the Midwest. You have to convince Verin to trade Montana. Otherwise, you're staying in the Pacific. As the current votes show, chances are you are the only one in the region who supports New Mexico joining the Midwest, and you're going to have convince 67% of the region to just give you up. I don't think you can make this happen, unless you arrange the trade of Montana.

And I still think it is amusing that you call me a Stalinist when I have in no way abused my powers as Governor. Verin, on the other hand, is an imperalistic dictator-wannabe. He is clearly more of a Stalinist than I am. Would you not have to be a fan of Stalinism to leave the non-Stalinist regioin of the Pacific for the Stalinist region of the Midwest?

*cough* *cough*

Pardon me, I had a frog in my throat.

The fact that the Pacific has such a large Stalinist contingent is disturbing. December was when the lunatic legislation began to roll into the Pacific.

Actually, I doubt I'll get approval in any event, but I'll [OOC: play the game] go through this circus of flaming hoops as a gesture of good faith! And the Region is showing itself to be supporters of imperialism, by preventing New Mexico from choosing its own destiny!

Nay, for Verin is the very model of a good governor, and the Midwest is the very model of a good Region! Their legislation may be lighthearted, but it isn't as radical on a base level as things getting enacted into law right this second in the Pacific! OOC: Heh heh heh heh heh

WMS, I strongly disagree.  I am sure we would overwhelmingly trade New Mexico for Montana. However, we feel like we are being robbed of a state. The only one who is being difficult is Verin.

Montana does not have any voters, therefore Montana could not say no to being traded. Only the Midwesterners can deny the trade of Montana. Only Verin is keeping you in the Pacific, WMS.

Thank God, someone finally figured out what I'm doing ^_-

Well then, I shall present this proposal to the mighty ILV and await his reply.

[Rob]

New Mexico Regional Transfer Resolution: Nay

Constitutional Amendment on Voter Registration and Voting Rules : Aye

Backup Redistricting Amendment: Aye

I'm disturbed at the failure of the reasonable anti-Republican and anti-religious measures. It seems that the radical right exercises considerable power, even in the moderate Pacific Region.

[WMS]

I'm disturbed at the failure of the reasonable anti-Republican and anti-religious measures. It seems that the radical right exercises considerable power, even in the moderate Pacific Region.

Smartass.

Only from the viewpoint of a Stalinist would those measures be deemed reasonable.

[ilikeverin]

Something "almost" happened, that means it didn't. Relax. What exactly happened in December, anyway?

You know what you have to do for New Mexico to join the Midwest. You have to convince Verin to trade Montana. Otherwise, you're staying in the Pacific. As the current votes show, chances are you are the only one in the region who supports New Mexico joining the Midwest, and you're going to have convince 67% of the region to just give you up. I don't think you can make this happen, unless you arrange the trade of Montana.

And I still think it is amusing that you call me a Stalinist when I have in no way abused my powers as Governor. Verin, on the other hand, is an imperalistic dictator-wannabe. He is clearly more of a Stalinist than I am. Would you not have to be a fan of Stalinism to leave the non-Stalinist regioin of the Pacific for the Stalinist region of the Midwest?

*cough* *cough*

Pardon me, I had a frog in my throat.

The fact that the Pacific has such a large Stalinist contingent is disturbing. December was when the lunatic legislation began to roll into the Pacific.

Actually, I doubt I'll get approval in any event, but I'll [OOC: play the game] go through this circus of flaming hoops as a gesture of good faith! And the Region is showing itself to be supporters of imperialism, by preventing New Mexico from choosing its own destiny!

Nay, for Verin is the very model of a good governor, and the Midwest is the very model of a good Region! Their legislation may be lighthearted, but it isn't as radical on a base level as things getting enacted into law right this second in the Pacific! OOC: Heh heh heh heh heh

WMS, I strongly disagree.  I am sure we would overwhelmingly trade New Mexico for Montana. However, we feel like we are being robbed of a state. The only one who is being difficult is Verin.

Montana does not have any voters, therefore Montana could not say no to being traded. Only the Midwesterners can deny the trade of Montana. Only Verin is keeping you in the Pacific, WMS.

Thank God, someone finally figured out what I'm doing ^_-

Well then, I shall present this proposal to the mighty ILV and await his reply.

The Midwest shall never part with its beloved Montana!  Why, its citizens practically self-immolated themselves to join the Midwest, it would be improper of us to give them back up!  It is also the ancestral homeland of lewicus tronheimius, a rare cat native to the Midwest!

I am highly disappointed you continue to deny the will of the people of New Mexico, Jesus.  Whether or not Montana is traded, it is the sovereign right of the people of New Mexico (and Utah and Idaho) to transfer themselves willy-nilly between regions whenever they please, so long as "willy-nilly" is really just a synonym for "towards the Midwest"!  It is your responsibility as currently officially recognized controller of the state of New Mexico to represent the state's citizens, and that is what the citizens want!

OOC: I was looking forward to the day when OOC would be used in Atlasia

[bgwah]

See what I mean, WMS? An empty state. The wannabe dictator won't even trade an empty state for you, while I seek compromise!

Ilikeverin? More like Verin the Brutal!

[Ebowed]

and are you going to claim that every abortion, even one done in the third trimester, is not killing a living being?

I never made any such statement.  Are you next going to contend that we should expand such rights to all living beings?

Abortions of mixed-race babies?

Why would a woman who consented to sex with someone from another race get an abortion of a mixed-race fetus?

You can present all sorts of unlikely scenarios.  Third trimester abortions are extremely rare; given that women normally only partake in that tragic solution in the most dire of circumstances, why should we legislate which circumstances are appropriate?  Only a highly small percentage of abortion clinics even perform them, anyway.

That strongly implies that you would support legislation more narrowly-tailored to outlaw only those faiths you deem a 'threat to society'

My main reason for opposing the legislation as stated was that it infringes on freedom of religion and belief.  I do not support any bans on religions and I voted accordingly.  The comments that followed it were personal commentary and not meant to be translated into political causes.  There was no reason to believe that I support such ideas as you imply.

given the bloody history of the Soviet Union the idea that Atheism has never been a "threat to society" is clearly untrue.

Stalin was a nutso dictator who forced a religious belief on his citizens; that's obviously not going to work regardless of the religion.  Either way you make an assumption that atheism is a threat to society because Stalin was atheist, yet you overlook the overwhelming majority of atheists who are good and decent people, and often have stronger moral compasses than anyone else.

For that matter, the very Abolishment of Organized Religion Actitself contradicts your view

Great.  Notice that I voted "NAY" on it.

removal of even neutral expressions such as "In God We Trust" through legislation

It's a resolution, not legislation that will change anything.  And the phrase is not neutral.  What if our money said "In Allah We Trust"?  "In No God We Trust"?  Would you like that?

You cannot utter a word of faith in the public sphere

That is not what the bill does.

And then there is not any recitation of patriotism, even voluntary, allowed?

NO.  Stop trying to read fascism into my bills.  The bill merely removes a government-written statement of patriotism as the federal government did in 2005.  It does not outlaw anything.  ANYTHING.

[Platypus]

New Mexico Regional Transfer Resolution: Nay

Constitutional Amendment on Voter Registration and Voting Rules : Aye

Backup Redistricting Amendment: Aye

[minionofmidas]

I am emotionally attached to Montana, but (unlike my boss) I would be ready to contemplate a transfer of Colorado or Wyoming for New Mexico as a means of second-to-last resort.

[Everett]

After realising that I proposed legislation to completely legalise all recreational drugs at some point last night, I deleted my post. I might consider proposing a similar bill once I sober up completely, though that might take some time as I am currently on very heavy painkillers.

I still don't know why the fascist who voted against the Reproductive Freedom Act, the Physician-Assisted Suicide Act, and the Alcohol Freedom Act (among other things) has resorted to calling Ebowed a fascist.



Why should the government become involved with a woman's personal decisions? Why should the government become involved with any individual's personal decisions? Why should the government be responsible for enforcing a minimum drinking age that most teenagers completely ignore?

My attempts at banning organised religion were clearly intended to be blatantly offensive, unconstitutional bullsh**t and you can quit pretending to believe otherwise. Keep sticking your head in the sand and pretending that I was being completely serious but you're just making others think that you are an idiot now. Ebowed',s propositions are quite legitimate, unlike mine, and I have no problems with them. Religion has no place in our government. Religion is a personal matter, not the business of the government.

Here, let us perform some analysis on Ebowed',s propositions.

1. The Pledge of Allegiance is abolished.

This says nothing about illegalising the voluntary recitation of the Pledge, simply that the Pledge is rendered obsolete and is not required to be recited anymore.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, there is no illegalisation involved. You are free to think of unofficial statements of patriotism and recite those. The government is simply refusing to adopt an official statement. What is so fascist about that?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Religious institutions should not be receiving benefits that secular institutions do not. Simple as that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"In God We Trust" will be removed from our currency. Does that mean that we shall be rioting for "In God We Don't Trust" to be added? Of course not. Absence of pro-religious statements does not directly imply anti-religious sentiments and anyone who believes as such is being ridiculous.

Oh, and I fully intend to assist in making it well nigh impossible for New Mexico to leave the Pacific until we receive at least one other state from the Midwest in exchange. You vote fascistly, we vote fascistly. Simple as that.

[Alcon]

I am emotionally attached to Montana, but (unlike my boss) I would be ready to contemplate a transfer of Colorado or Wyoming for New Mexico as a means of second-to-last resort.

And we just suddenly became emotionally attached to Montana AND Colorado.  We might become emotionally attached to Wyoming too if the midwest doesn't hurry up.

[ilikeverin]

I am emotionally attached to Montana, but (unlike my boss) I would be ready to contemplate a transfer of Colorado or Wyoming for New Mexico as a means of second-to-last resort.

And we just suddenly became emotionally attached to Montana AND Colorado.  We might become emotionally attached to Wyoming too if the midwest doesn't hurry up.

Well, too late, because we're already emotionally attached to New Mexico, Idaho, and Utah.  We pre-emptively became emotionally attached to defeat you

Note we were one vote away from being emotionally attached to the ENTIRE PACIFIC.  So nyah.

[Alcon]

Well, too late, because we're already emotionally attached to New Mexico, Idaho, and Utah.  We pre-emptively became emotionally attached to defeat you

That's really a shame, because you aren't even getting New Mexico.

Note we were one vote away from being emotionally attached to the ENTIRE PACIFIC.  So nyah.

I don't know what that means.  Sorry, but I haven't been following your latest fascist power grabs.

Unlike the Midwest, the Pacific relies on democracy.  Except, you know, when we rely on blowing the crap out of Belle Fourche, South Dakota.

[Gabu]

Unlike the Midwest, the Pacific relies on democracy.  Except, you know, when we rely on blowing the crap out of Belle Fourche, South Dakota.

How did you blow Belle Fourche out of itself?

[Alcon]

Unlike the Midwest, the Pacific relies on democracy.  Except, you know, when we rely on blowing the crap out of Belle Fourche, South Dakota.

How did you blow Belle Fourche out of itself?

I have discussed this response with the Pacific Region's advisers, who unanimously agreed to release the following statement:

Zing!

[ilikeverin]

Unlike the Midwest, the Pacific relies on democracy.  Except, you know, when we rely on blowing the crap out of Belle Fourche, South Dakota.

How did you blow Belle Fourche out of itself?

I have discussed this response with the Pacific Region's advisers, who unanimously agreed to release the following statement:

Zing!

The people of Belle Fourche are shocked and disturbed that you happen to be insulting their crap.  It makes a lovely fertilizer, thank you very much.

[Everett]

INTRODUCED BECAUSE I HATE YOU ALL AND WANT YOU TO DIE

Pacific Drug Free Zone Act
1. The Pacific Region shall hereby be designated as a Drug Free Zone.
2. The usage of all recreational drugs is legalised.
3. The sale of all recreational drugs is legalised.
4. Crimes commmitted whilst under the influence of recreational drugs shall be prosecuted as crimes committed whilst in any other mental state.

Alcon Is Sexy Act
1. Alcon is a sexy, sexy piece of bread.

[WMS]

OOC: Do you know what OOC means, Ebowed? Now would be a good time to figure that out

I never made any such statement.  Are you next going to contend that we should expand such rights to all living beings?

So are you saying that although a fetus is a living being, it has no rights whatsoever then? If you deny that abortion is not killing a living being, that certainly seems like the only other meaning your words could have. And if that is the case, let me express my condemnation of the Disciple of Molech before me. Abortion is a matter of balancing the rights of two lives, not just one. And as for your slippery slope argument, I call BS. While cruelty should always be discouraged in the taking of life, there are circumstances in which the non-cruel taking of life is necessary - for survival, primarily. And your de facto equating of a fetus with any other form of life, say, a mosquito, I find bizarre and disturbing.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Perhaps their view is that mixed-racial sex is OK but mixed-racial progeny are not OK? This view would be a valid reason for abortion under your law - any reason is valid under your law.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Everything is allowable under your law - and [source] it is a very extreme law - "Though abortion is legal in many Western European countries, the procedure is more widely available in the United States Atlasia. U.S. Atlasian abortion law, in terms of how late an abortion may take place, is far more permissive than that of other nations such as France, Germany, and the United Kingdom, for example. For instance, in France, unless the fetus is severely deformed or the woman's health is at risk, any abortion after the first trimester is illegal. Canada is more permissive, granting abortion on demand, while Australia places heavier restrictions on the procedure." And your law goes even beyond this! [also a source] It takes the most extreme position possible, one with a tad over one-quarter support - and that is for second-trimester abortions. Your third-trimester abortion position is that of one-tenth of the population! You ask why we should restrict third-trimester abortions because they are "extremely rare"? They are rare because they were restricted, and they will become considerably less rare under your law. As for the reasons for it, [source] most of the reasons are not due to dire circumstances: "71% Woman didn't recognize she was pregnant or misjudged gestation". And as for why we should legislate which circumstances are appropriate? Why should we take a stance on anything? Why should the Pacific have banned the death penalty, if not for moral reasons? Why is that different?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The comments you made implied otherwise - that your opposition was because the Act infringed on all freedom of religion and belief instead of infringing on only the freedom of religion and belief for most religions, the ones you don't like, and threw your actions into suspicion. Why should one hostile to - and this goes past mutual tolerance to outright hostility toward - almost all organized religion be trusted to oppose discrimination against it? You may have clarified your position now but your statement was not exactly a ringing endorsement of a policy of, yes, mutual tolerance.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Lenin and Trotsky were much the same way in regards to religious faith, and there was atheist persecution all the years of the Soviet Union. This goes beyond just Stalin. And you second sentence is a straw man fallacy. I was disproving your point that atheists were not threats to society whereas almost all other faiths were by indicating that atheists were also capable of being threats to society by giving an example. The overwhelming majority of atheists may well be good and decent people. The same goes for most if not all of the faiths you insulted by omission. That combined with your "often have stronger moral compasses than anyone else" illustrates your religious bigotry quite strikingly. I think that most of the adherents of most faiths are "good and decent people." That is more tolerant than your position.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

For going too far, as stated above.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Probably not, but it would be within the right of the government to do so. I prefer a cacophony of voices of faith, not a sterilized secular humanist silence.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

All expressions of faith would be private ones. Nothing but secularism would be allowed in the public sphere. If you disagree, then what if a local government decided to, say, put on a Christmas display? Is that OK? If so, why not on currency? If not, then the public sphere is blocked. This combined with your revoking tax-exempt status from all religious institutions is not a neutral act. But I shall answer that when I get to Everett's statement.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[OOC: Ah, dug up that Act...not as clear-cut as either its proponents or its opponents would believe...and that includes you ]
Except a government voluntarily asking for a statement of support for it. But if a government shall not be allowed to ask for loyalty to it at all...well, that brings up some interesting questions indeed.
[OOC: And you shall see them, soon. Let the game continue!

Everett I shall deal with separately because of forum post length restrictions.

[WMS]

Well, too late, because we're already emotionally attached to New Mexico, Idaho, and Utah.  We pre-emptively became emotionally attached to defeat you

That's really a shame, because you aren't even getting New Mexico.

You are not the primary one to decide that. As you might find out quite soon.

[OOC: Things are moving along nicely now ]

[OOC: You (Everett) also need to learn about OOC.]

I still don't know why the fascist who voted against the Reproductive Freedom Act, the Physician-Assisted Suicide Act, and the Alcohol Freedom Act (among other things) has resorted to calling Ebowed a fascist.

I see the immature Pacific Senator is starting off with a personal attack. Sad but expected. And I see that you have adopted the PC position that any opposition to extremist legislation makes one a fascist. Typical. And I used the phrase "PC Nazi" based on this fine publication, which I already mentioned.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Considering I have not yet given what my laws would be, I find this picture presumptuous. And I am surprised that you would hint that Ebowed is a fascist after all.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because in the case of abortion, "a woman's personal decisions" impact other living beings. I believe the unborn fetus has rights, and as there are no others to protect their rights, the government has a right to become involved. You, clearly, disagree. Then I will ask you if you support or oppose anti-cruelty legislation in regards to animals, both domestic pets and on factories? The principle - to protect what cannot protect itself - is the same. As in regards to your anarcho-libertarian statement, if the government should not be involved with any individual's personal decisions, then why is there a minimum wage? Why are there any laws restricting whatever the individuals running businesses do whatsoever, including anti-discrimination laws? Why is there any intervention in the field of education - why is there public education at all? Why are there any government services? Do you back the abolition of government? If the government has no power to interfere in an individual's decisions, then why have a government, period?

The reasons for a minimum drinking age actually flow into the reasons to have any laws at all - because there are public interests and public goods, and in this case it is in the public interest not to encourage drinking in those who share not in any of the responsibilities of dealing with the negative effects of it. And before you say it, I support lowering the drinking age to 18, the age where all rights and responsibilities are granted in full.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[OOC: You're not getting it.]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

IC: I see there are yet more personal attacks.
OOC: If you meant that in reality, then back off. This is a GAME.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A cacophony of voices, not a sterilized silence. But I have covered that elsewhere. And looking below...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]
Religious institutions should not be receiving benefits that secular institutions do not. Simple as that.[/quote]

NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS! "A nonprofit organization (abbreviated "NPO", or "non-profit" or "not-for-profit") is an organization whose primary objective is to support an issue or matter of private interest or public concern for non-commercial purposes. Nonprofits may be involved in an innumerable range of areas relating to the arts, charities, education, politics, religion, research, sports or some other endeavor." Note that religion is included. I suggest you examine the 501(c) section as well. Are you and Ebowed suggesting that all non-profits lose their tax exemptions? If not, then how is Section 3 anything but anti-religious bigotry?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[OOC:   That statement of yours works rather well with my plans, oh yes it does...]

I see the Stalinist Queen is seeking to deny New Mexico Self-Determination. That is to be expected from one hostile to the good people of New Mexico...

[OOC: I've been waiting to use that title... ]

INTRODUCED BECAUSE I HATE YOU ALL AND WANT YOU TO DIE

Pacific Drug Free Zone Act
1. The Pacific Region shall hereby be designated as a Drug Free Zone.
2. The usage of all recreational drugs is legalised.
3. The sale of all recreational drugs is legalised.
4. Crimes commmitted whilst under the influence of recreational drugs shall be prosecuted as crimes committed whilst in any other mental state.

The Stalinist Queen strikes again!

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Just a note to say that I'm still reading this. Much material has been gathered for another Ingsoc publication (one not seen for months... maybe over a year?) and I'd like to thank you all for that

Lenin and Trotsky were much the same way in regards to religious faith, and there was atheist persecution all the years of the Soviet Union. This goes beyond just Stalin.

The irony here is that a classical Marxist view of religion would be that it, like the state, it would just wither away when the Socialist utopia is established, as it would no longer have a useful purpose to the people (or to put it another way; when things are good enough to mean that there's no need for opium to take the pain and suffering away).

O/c the emphasis of Marxist-Leninism was always on the latter name...

[Alcon]

You are not the primary one to decide that. As you might find out quite soon.

You can do it without the majority approval of Pacificans?

[Gabu]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Considering I have not yet given what my laws would be, I find this picture presumptuous. And I am surprised that you would hint that Ebowed is a fascist after all.

[WMS]

Just a note to say that I'm still reading this. Much material has been gathered for another Ingsoc publication (one not seen for months... maybe over a year?) and I'd like to thank you all for that

Lenin and Trotsky were much the same way in regards to religious faith, and there was atheist persecution all the years of the Soviet Union. This goes beyond just Stalin.

The irony here is that a classical Marxist view of religion would be that it, like the state, it would just wither away when the Socialist utopia is established, as it would no longer have a useful purpose to the people (or to put it another way; when things are good enough to mean that there's no need for opium to take the pain and suffering away).

O/c the emphasis of Marxist-Leninism was always on the latter name...

OOC: Ah, good points Al. I'll reply to Private Eye in its thread.

You are not the primary one to decide that. As you might find out quite soon.

You can do it without the majority approval of Pacificans?

OOC: *grins evilly*

IC: New Mexican Self-Determination shall not be denied.

Considering I have not yet given what my laws would be, I find this picture presumptuous. And I am surprised that you would hint that Ebowed is a fascist after all.

OOC: The Peanut Gallery can go hush now.

[Gabu]

OOC: The Peanut Gallery can go hush now.

[Ebowed]

So are you saying that although a fetus is a living being, it has no rights whatsoever then?

Abortion at any stage of the pregnancy ends the life of a living being.  Why are you only focusing on the third trimester?

This view would be a valid reason for abortion under your law - any reason is valid under your law.

Yes, because the law leaves the decision up to the woman.  Her choice does not need to be validated by the public as to whether it's "acceptable" or not.

Your third-trimester abortion position is that of one-tenth of the population!

You know, I don't really care.  The bill passed this legislature, and that's what matters here.

They are rare because they were restricted, and they will become considerably less rare under your law.

Wait, so you think women will wait until they're seven months pregnant to get an abortion now?  Your logic sucks, and it's not even backed up by the statistics.  States with third trimester abortion bans have the same very low rate as those without.  Now, do you honestly think that women remain pregnant as long as they can?  Do you know anything about pregnancy?

Why should the Pacific have banned the death penalty, if not for moral reasons? Why is that different?

There are many reasons to ban the death penalty, including but not limited to moral ones.  I do not necessarily see abortion as immoral; just because you do, remember that not everyone shares the same opinion.  If you have a problem with the way this legislature voted, you are free to propose legislation to change it.

Probably not, but it would be within the right of the government to do so.

Yes, I am aware that it is within the right of a government to establish theocracy.  What exactly is your point?

Nothing but secularism would be allowed in the public sphere.

The public sphere is open to the public and thus religion can be celebrated and displayed by anyone in public.

But if a government shall not be allowed to ask for loyalty to it at all...well, that brings up some interesting questions indeed.

A good government shouldn't need to ask for loyalty with a pre-written statement of support.  If someone truly supports their government, they can write their own "pledge."

You want the government to be able to celebrate faith, yet if the government were to celebrate outright atheism, you would consider this "intrusive secularism", despite desperate attempts to compare atheism to religion whenever possible.  Where is the consistency in this?  If you want the government to celebrate faith so much, why don't you write a bill to bring the caste system to the Pacific?

[Ebowed]

Adoption Bill
1. The government shall establish an Adoption Fund, which will allow persons and couples to adopt children under the age of 5 without incurring cost.
2. No person shall be barred from adopting a child on the basis of their sexual orientation.
3. Public schools are barred from requiring children to find out information about their genetics that may potentially lead to a hidden adoption status from being unveiled.