SR 106-04: Wulfric Resolution (Passed)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

It recalls to mind many occasion when I warned the various reform minded individuals back in the day, in their militant desire to destroy Napoleon's political movement, not to become the very thing that they are fighting against and furthermore not to become the next villains in the arc of history. I am also forced to recall another period situation, that being the treatment of Poirot at the hands of Governor Simfan, which was a rather unfortunate episode in the history of the Pacific. Lastly, the treatment of Xahar at the hands of the political allies of bgwah.

While the hostility toward McDonald's is problematic, I don't think this is the appropriate avenue for any response by the critics in this regards and the idea of the government seeking to eliminate as strain of thought "from all aspects of life", should give anyone a degree of concern for the aggregation and abuse of power. On the contrary, it is more appropriate to operate to combat the rise in influence of movements that one finds problematic through persuasion while at the same time denying the ability for the more extreme manifestations of such to achieve their will on the policy landscape in the mean time. This avoids the more heavy handed approach of relying on government power to stamp it out.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Would McDonalds be more anti Scottish than Irish? Maybe amend it to the more inclusive "Celtic rim" phrasing in that case, to cover all the bases.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Seeing as we have a very serious issue with the antisemitism, I think this should be paired back to just condemning that, rather than a sweeping condemnation of what are best meme political positions, which should be resisted in other ways (such as my acquisition of McDonald's yesterday, the denial of passage to bills trying to ban McDonald's and such forth).

Has the person in question directly expressed Anti-Irish sentiment other than via the name of the establishment that he is so quixotic about eliminating?

As for behavior in a regional chamber, while I am not against the Senate necessarily expressing a behavior, the primary place for passing such a condemnation would naturally be in that region itself.

As it reads now, we have a resolution that gives a lengthy reasons for anti-wulfricism that basically all amount to meme issues, than almost as an aside at the end is like, "oh by the way, he thinks Jews...". I think there is a disconnect here in terms of the severity of the issues at hand and the structure of the resolution.

At minimum IV should be moved up to II with the original II and III made to be III and IV respectively.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

It's better yes.

The only remaining question is the anti Irish thing? Has this been overtly expressed or established beyond his myopic desire to destroy a fast food joint with an Irish name? Has he gone after O'Reilly Auto Parts?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Aye FTR

I thought I had voted here.