|
|
Post by Kansiov on Jun 8, 2014 17:23:51 GMT -5
Despite being vastly outnumbered in terms of player base, I motion to the Republican leadership that we remove Jack London of Delaware from the party. I cannot simply stand idle while we have a man mad espousing the destruction of Southern commerce, in the South! Given that we lack any rules for removal, I move that we call to a vote, with a two-thirds majority requirement to remove the said individual.
|
|
|
|
Post by terrus on Jun 8, 2014 18:16:44 GMT -5
Gentlemen, please, there is no need for such a division on this issue. It is certainly true that there is some disagreement here -- but, I'm sure this bill will never see the light of day. Must we necessarily move to expel one another over something that will be nothing?
|
|
|
|
Post by Kansiov on Jun 8, 2014 18:33:48 GMT -5
I am disappointed that the chair fails to recognize the pressing matter of this issue. The right for the sustenance of southern commerce is a pillar and must continue to be a pillar for this party to survive. I cannot accept that a fellow party member is rallying for the destruction of this pillar, especially in the State of Delaware, where the slave trade plays a vital role local industry and commerce.
|
|
|
|
Post by terrus on Jun 8, 2014 18:56:59 GMT -5
You must give the gentleman credit for the courage of his convictions -- he would not be arguing for the destruction of his own state's economy otherwise.
We've already seen one so-called "abolitionist" leave this party. Must we now drive out one? This party is formed around the pillars of freedom and liberty, being an opponent to Federalism. Surely there can be disagreement without our party about certain issues, without that undermining our work to limit the federal government?
|
|
|
|
Post by Kansiov on Jun 8, 2014 19:12:34 GMT -5
Mr. Chair, I am very well aware of the foundations of this party, and I am certainly most willing to accept colleagues of differing views within this party. However, the convictions of the said member to the principles of our party must be questioned, when he is the leader and founder of a movement to unconstitutionally rid the South's most vital commodity. The member has endorsed the Freedom Act, the creation of an unconstitutional levy on states, to an unconstitutional bank for the unconstitutional redistribution of wealth to the negro. Need I say more that the gentleman's views could not be more misaligned to the views of the party?
|
|
|
|
Post by terrus on Jun 8, 2014 20:47:43 GMT -5
Representative Hill makes a fair point. Representative London?
|
|
|
|
Post by terrus on Jun 12, 2014 11:58:42 GMT -5
Okay. Well, London has not responded, and I've left him plenty of time. Is there a second to the motion?
|
|
|
|
Post by TheJohnson on Jun 12, 2014 12:28:38 GMT -5
I second.
|
|
|
|
Post by terrus on Jun 12, 2014 13:22:19 GMT -5
Alright. I'll recognize the motion, and go ahead and open a vote. There is no party charter (I'll get to work on that tomorrow), so it'll just require a majority. 24 hours.
I'm going to vote present, as I dislike condemning a man that provided no defense, but also see no reason to support a man that provided no defense.
|
|
|
|
Post by surratt on Jun 12, 2014 14:13:07 GMT -5
I vote against removal. We're all closet abolitionists anyways  . So suck it up and deal with it. Oh also I believe this forum is OOC so no need for all the IC drama. |
|
|
|
Post by terrus on Jun 12, 2014 15:00:39 GMT -5
Eh, I prefer to act IC all the time.  |
|
|
|
Post by Kansiov on Jun 12, 2014 19:07:30 GMT -5
Aye for removal.
|
|
|
|
Post by terrus on Jun 13, 2014 7:22:38 GMT -5
Upon review, I'm going to change my vote to nay. If we reject him, it'll be front page news. Right now, he's inactive...so letting him formally stay in the party means nothing.
|
|
. So suck it up and deal with it. Oh also I believe this forum is OOC so no need for all the IC drama. 