[Brio]

my head just imploded.

Better than exploded, as that is always a pain in the ass to clean up. Getting brain matter residue off of furniture can be a real bitch.

Oh and its funny I thought the RF was the nominal protest vote but I see Falx has out protested even us.

[Infidelis]

Better than exploded, as that is always a pain in the ass to clean up. Getting brain matter residue off of furniture can be a real bitch.

Oh and its funny I thought the RF was the nominal protest vote but I see Falx has out protested even us.

Aye, however this leaky mess is causing my ears to clog and my eyes to see red. I can't tell if that's from my blood leaking over my eyes or the pure number of commies and socialists.

[Gnote]

From what I have seen so far in this thread, it seems as though the vast majority of concessions are being made by the SLD, despite the fact that the SLD holds the relatively larger share of support.

What, exactly, is the PUC conceding in order to form this coalition?

I propose the SLD platform be taken as the basis for any coalition. The PUC can feel free to specify the areas of contention, and offer amendments to those specific areas. This amended platform, based substantially on the SLD original, will then form the coalition platform.

On the specific issue of abortion, it would appear that the PUC is asking for a rather substantial concession from the SLD. I would be willing to eliminate public funding for elective abortions only if the definition of 'elective abortion' was very narrow. I worry about a situation where equitable access to abortion services is not provided. For instance, no good can come of a situation that enables a wealthy woman to access an abortion while a poor woman cannot.

[Paradigm]

Gnote makes a good point. I await Nets' offers of concession.

[Clausewitz]

For my own part, I don't really care very much about abortion funding and religious charities. I'd be willing to accept the SLDs' position on the issues (although on the religious charities, there seems to be considerable support for liberal funding measures among SLDs). But I had no idea that this would cause so much controversy.

[Gnote]

I will not support the singling-out of 'religious charities' as being more entitled to public funding than any other sort of charity carrying out community-development work. Religious charities should not be exempt from receiving such funding, but they should also not expect to receive any preferential sort of treatment.

[Clausewitz]

That's our position - there were some (like Falx) who wanted to exclude them. We only want them treated the same.

[Gnote]

I can get in line with that.

I just want to be clear that there should be no language whatsoever that singles out religious charities from any other, but there should be very detailed language describing the type of work the charity must be engaging in, and that work should be restricted to that which is inarguably secular in nature.

[Attica]

I wish you guys all the best, even if I made your heads implode... Now that Gnote has laid down some good points I think you guys can go forward and work this coalition out. The negotiations also now lack the harsh thoughts of a madman doing an essay at 3am in the morning, drastically arguing against religion while buzzing off three cans of red bull and talking about the national identities of Australia and America elsewhere.... Check the voting booth.

[DDave3]

Have you rejoined the SLD, Attica?

[Infidelis]

Have you rejoined the SLD, Attica?

If so, welcome back...we look forward to more tactful talks with our fellow PoFoland Patriot!

And good show...I'm recovering well. The doctors said my bandages should be off by Monday.

[Nets]

Paradigm, what concessions exactly are you looking for?

From my view, the PUC and SLD basically agreed on all points, the contentious points were

- religious charities should be allowed to compete equally with non-religious charities for government funding for secular charitable purposes; neither should be preferred. (With appropriate safeguards to prevent proselytizing).
- No third trimester abortions (except in special circumstances)
- No direct government funding of abortions (with increased government support of comprehensive sex education and poverty reduction to reduce the number of abortions).

What do you want us to concede?

[Attica]

Have you rejoined the SLD, Attica?

I never left, I just changed my vote temporarily in a whiskey fueled rage (see my bio).

--

- religious charities should be allowed to compete equally with non-religious charities for government funding for secular charitable purposes; neither should be preferred. (With appropriate safeguards to prevent proselytizing).
- No third trimester abortions (except in special circumstances)
- No direct government funding of abortions (with increased government support of comprehensive sex education and poverty reduction to reduce the number of abortions).

If we don't have direct funding of abortions, how do we monitor the cost of abortions on the health system so we can help find new ways to minimise the amount of abortions occurring each year? Surely we need to know the cost and not just the numbers of them occuring. I will concede the point of charities as LONG as they are kept to incredibly strict secular guidelines and do not discriminate against people of different religions or no religion if those people wish to participate in their operations. I am down with no third trimester abortions, but I still don't see the reasoning of no 'direct' government funding of abortions. What does this mean? Does this mean we can give hospitals an X amount annually and they use that specifically on things the Government 'cant be seen to be supporting? ' ?? Confused.