In case you were wondering, I considered my answer to be rather suave. Basically, Langley shoots himself in the foot with this attitude, and I hope that the MP will come round and tell him to behave a bit as well... 
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
- Status
Proposed public statement concerning anti-terrorism legislation:
"At the Rally for Democracy, we remain firmly committed to providing our citizens with the security they deserve, regardless of governments and term limits. We will strive to complete the started legislative efforts, whatever the composition of government may be after the next elections. Discussion and compromise is essential in the process of developing quality legislation.
In this field, the RD commits itself to establish the necessary laws that give us the power to prevent terrorist strikes from occurring, and in the sad event that they do occur, we wish to see enough attention to persecution and punishment of those responsible. On the other hand, we feel that it is imperative that privacy rights are respected, and we will do all that we can to ensure that these cannot be trampled on by the police or any investigative agency.
Our citizens should be protected from threats, but not at the cost of every morsel of personal freedom and privacy."
If I dont receive a negative comment in the next few hours, I'll go ahead and issue this public statement, after which I will immediately start pressurising the CC members of parliament to vote for the WBR. If they fail to do so, I think we should seriously re-evaluate our working relations with them.
Langley tried to put a knife on our throat, I say we walk with it and turn it our way.
"At the Rally for Democracy, we remain firmly committed to providing our citizens with the security they deserve, regardless of governments and term limits. We will strive to complete the started legislative efforts, whatever the composition of government may be after the next elections. Discussion and compromise is essential in the process of developing quality legislation.
In this field, the RD commits itself to establish the necessary laws that give us the power to prevent terrorist strikes from occurring, and in the sad event that they do occur, we wish to see enough attention to persecution and punishment of those responsible. On the other hand, we feel that it is imperative that privacy rights are respected, and we will do all that we can to ensure that these cannot be trampled on by the police or any investigative agency.
Our citizens should be protected from threats, but not at the cost of every morsel of personal freedom and privacy."
If I dont receive a negative comment in the next few hours, I'll go ahead and issue this public statement, after which I will immediately start pressurising the CC members of parliament to vote for the WBR. If they fail to do so, I think we should seriously re-evaluate our working relations with them.
Langley tried to put a knife on our throat, I say we walk with it and turn it our way.
Okay This is my list:
ESRP
MP
CRE
CC
I will not say again anything about the CRE if you all like... And I'm the only one who belives is best to ally with the CRE that with the CC so I simply will not talk about the coalition I was just Thinking in other solutions... I belive the MP will want the CC and I trully don't want them... And I allways said that but I never jeperdise the Party because of that... And I don't Think ANY of you should... And about the CRE you can see in the CRE comm what they said THEY COULD ALLY even without any Monarchist AGENDA....
NOW... I will ( sadlly ) became quite....
Hurray for the Leaders of the Rally for Democracy
ESRP
MP
CRE
CC
Mel I don't think this is a good thing to the party...
I will not say again anything about the CRE if you all like... And I'm the only one who belives is best to ally with the CRE that with the CC so I simply will not talk about the coalition I was just Thinking in other solutions... I belive the MP will want the CC and I trully don't want them... And I allways said that but I never jeperdise the Party because of that... And I don't Think ANY of you should... And about the CRE you can see in the CRE comm what they said THEY COULD ALLY even without any Monarchist AGENDA....
NOW... I will ( sadlly ) became quite....
Hurray for the Leaders of the Rally for Democracy
Fair enough, Vasco, you have a good point there - Philipp and I shouldnt start threatening with anything, although I hope you can understand why the subject is so emotional.
All I'm saying, is that every single other possibility should be explored and dismissed before I'm willing to consider allying with the CRE. This of course does not mean we cannot cooperate on specific issues with them.
All I'm saying, is that every single other possibility should be explored and dismissed before I'm willing to consider allying with the CRE. This of course does not mean we cannot cooperate on specific issues with them.
How about a positive comment instead? I.e., I like it.
On the CRE: the statement I made about my place in the party wasn't intended as a threat, but as a simple observation. As regards the comparison with the CC, I don't think *any* of us relished the prospect of working with the Conservatives. However, speaking for myself, I could (and can) live with an alliance that includes the CC; I don't feel I could live with one that includes the CRE - at least not under the current circumstances.
On a related note, nobody here should feel they cannot voice their opinions. In fact, quite the opposite. After all, how are we to make a decision and arrive at a compromise as a party if we cannot have a frank exchange of views?
In other words, if people wish to ally with the CRE, they should feel free to say so in any way, shape or form. At the same time, I'm at liberty to voice my opinion on the matter as well, which is what I have done.P.N.H. Schwarzerd
I'd like to know how much leeway I can have in asking the ESRP to explain why on earth they voted for the CRE's university bill.
As it stands, my ministry is unable to execute the bill, due to lack of clarity (in the bill) and funds (in the ministry).
As it stands, my ministry is unable to execute the bill, due to lack of clarity (in the bill) and funds (in the ministry).
Originally posted by Melanchthon
On a related note, nobody here should feel they cannot voice their opinions. In fact, quite the opposite. After all, how are we to make a decision and arrive at a compromise as a party if we cannot have a frank exchange of views?
P.N.H. Schwarzerd
BUT... how can someone Speack freelly if one is saying he needs to reavaluate his position in the party?? IS in you point of view FAIR... to someone how whats to express his poits of view
Well, in fairness to the ESRP, there wasn't really an extended debate at the CPR, and I don't think the coalition as a whole has taken a stance. I do feel, however, that it is entirely acceptable to criticize Parliament for not consulting the experts, and I think now is as good a time as any to discuss in the CPR just how useless the university bill is. This may seem belated, but given the practical difficulties associated with the CRE's bill, having this discussion now may allow us to repeal the university bill early on in the next term (provided it is passed, which seems likely), before concrete action has actually been taken.
You made a suggestion, and I made it clear where I stand on it. I fail to see how that is unfair. I may have expressed my views very forcefully, but it was not my intention to deter anyone from expressing their own views; I simply believe that I owe it to the party to be honest about my feelings on this matter.Originally posted by I_Killed-Kenny
BUT... how can someone Speack freelly if one is saying he needs to reavaluate his position in the party?? IS in you point of view FAIR... to someone how whats to express his poits of view
P.N.H. Schwarzerd
I would like to be the RD representive in the Commission on Terror Prevention, Prosecution, and Punishment.
I promise to uphold democracy and I promise that I will serve this party as well as this country well.
I promise to uphold democracy and I promise that I will serve this party as well as this country well.
I say that is Unfair because YOU are the Father of the Party YOU are the Leader of this Party, When you say we could Abandon the leadrship this worlds could trembel the mortals... So that way to pass your messege is not a good one... And IF ( I MEAN IF ) I was looking for some support it WOULD ( I MEAN WOULD ) end in the second after you say that... Do you understand????
*grumble, grumble* Oh alright, take my spot already! *sulk sulk frown*
Sure go ahead... But I hope you dont mind a bit of advice on how to handle Langley, once in a while.
Knock yourself out.
I understand, but I disagree. As I said, I believe the party is owed honesty, especially after the Fox-incident. Or would you prefer if I kept silent and then just packed my bags one day? The fact that I happen to be the party's Spokesperson should not stop anybody from disagreeing with me as vehemently as they like; by the same token, it should not bar myself from expressing my own views.
P.N.H. Schwarzerd
I would like to propose a new party militia.
With revolutionaries growing in ranks and terrorists waging war against the west I believe we should have some sort of defence.
These militiamen would protect the RD HQ and other areas of RD interests.
I will be the leader of the militia so I wont put more burden on other more active party members.
This however does not exclude me from the parliment elections or any other job I hold now.
I believe 50 to 100 men would be enough.
Please dont think im a war monger, I just thought this would be a good idea for our party defence.
With revolutionaries growing in ranks and terrorists waging war against the west I believe we should have some sort of defence.
These militiamen would protect the RD HQ and other areas of RD interests.
I will be the leader of the militia so I wont put more burden on other more active party members.
This however does not exclude me from the parliment elections or any other job I hold now.
I believe 50 to 100 men would be enough.
Please dont think im a war monger, I just thought this would be a good idea for our party defence.
No way. Never in the Rally for DEMOCRACY will we have a militia, thank you very much.
A party militia strikes me as superfluous, not to mention that I do not believe it's an instrument of democratic party politics.
I have no problem with a small security force (two or three persons per shift, posted in the HQ-entrance hall), but I'd prefer to contract a private security firm rather than employing them directly. We're in the business of politics, not in the business of security.
P.N.H. Schwarzerd
[OOC: Just as a reminder, as per GM-ruling there won't be any party militias for the time being. A private security force is fine, as long as it's small and (preferably very) lightly armed.]
I have no problem with a small security force (two or three persons per shift, posted in the HQ-entrance hall), but I'd prefer to contract a private security firm rather than employing them directly. We're in the business of politics, not in the business of security.
P.N.H. Schwarzerd
[OOC: Just as a reminder, as per GM-ruling there won't be any party militias for the time being. A private security force is fine, as long as it's small and (preferably very) lightly armed.]
Your last statment made me doubt your motives and your faith in democracy...mr Smith. 50-100 men is like an small army and i disagree with this militia idea and i disagree even more with you controling it.
Last edited:
I dont know what all this talk about militias for parties is about, really... I feel perfectly safe here in our headquarters, and I feel perfectly safe on the streets.
Mr. Smith, during your short membership of the party, you've shown that you have interesting opinions and know how to voice them towards us and other parties. I strongly suggest that you drop this idea, and focus on what youre doing well: politics, not vigilantism.
Mr. Smith, during your short membership of the party, you've shown that you have interesting opinions and know how to voice them towards us and other parties. I strongly suggest that you drop this idea, and focus on what youre doing well: politics, not vigilantism.
I will drop my idea then.
I was concerned about the safety of our party nothing more.
[OOC: Please dont make this change your in character opinion of me]
I was concerned about the safety of our party nothing more.
[OOC: Please dont make this change your in character opinion of me]
- Status