|
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2006 20:24:18 GMT -6
Commissions are always fun.
|
|
Danihel Laurieir
Citizen since 7-1981; Count since 2-23-2006
Videbimus Omnes
Posts: 400
|
Post by Danihel Laurieir on Dec 11, 2006 0:16:43 GMT -6
[The chamber doors swing open and bang. A short, bald man strides to his place on the bench and urgently, school-boyishly, seeks recognition]
Fellow Legislators and Citizens, I rise—for the first and probably not the last time—as a member of the soon-to-be-officially-registered new party—The Defenders of the Throne!
And I am excited!
As of this posting, we Guard Dogs (that's the nickname we Defenders of the Throne have given ourselves) count 27 Talossan citizens as unleashed members of the party! (And, of course, the bulk of our members aren't old farts, but new ones.)
Hooray for us! Woof, woof!
I must apologize for being absent from the chamber for much of the debate that's swirling—typhoon-like—around this "Make-Woolley-and-His-Family-Kings-for-Life" bill. I was listening to the debate on the squawk box in my office. But can you guess why I was in my office instead of here on the floor debating the urgent issues of the day as I was elected to do?
Because I was shredding all my bank, investment and earning statements from the past 20 years. And why was I doing that? Because Sir John—the man who so many so eagerly want to make King—is planning to impose a 75 percent income tax on all Talossans within 2 minutes of having the Crown placed on his head. (He's got the Royal Tax Proclamation written already. Can you guess who will have sole authority over the treasury under Woolley's scheme?)
Anyway, if the sun breeds maggots in a dead dog…um, where was I? Oh yes, spontaneous generation….
Bill withdrawal request. As author of the amendment that created The Hopper, where Lord Hooligan's Woolley-Mania proposal currently resides, I grant that those who have suggested that my request that the bill's primary author withdraw his proposal is not necessary have a point. The proposal could theoretically stay in The Hopper indefinitely without being sent for inclusion in the Clark as a bill. I withdraw my request that this proposal be withdrawn from The Hopper, but there is a BUT (see below).
Why patience? Why these counsels of patience? some ask. Because how the table is set matters. Let me explain. First, there's nothing illegal or technically improper about Lord Hooligan's Bow-Before-Woolley proposal. But it is a proposal that "sets" the election "table" for King with just one candidate. It may be that even if there were 15 candidates for King, Woolley would still win unanimously, but it's a well-documented fact that one-candidate elections end in predictable ways. In our neighbor, Ronald Reagan won election to the Presidency despite being an underdog initially and so did Bill Clinton (the comeback Bluedawg). Second, I would like to see us consider possibly keeping the throne empty—under the protection of a new office (a retooled Regent or Steward or Guardian or Seat-Warmer)—until a true worthy emerged to sit there. Logically, this debate happens before we elect a Wing Koolley. First, the tablecloth, then the dishes and silverware. And then we sit down to eat with gusto, but at our leisure and civilly.
Misapplied veneration. Here's how our Organic Law refers to the King: "The nation itself owes its existence to the Monarch, and reciprocally the nation democratically grants unto the King and his successors certain Royal Powers…" This description does not fit Sir John Woolley. He has contributed much to Talossa (more than I have), but Talossa does not owe its existence to him. Sorry. I know perfectly well that this statement was in effect when the Boy-King-What's His-Name was King, but he became King in unusual circumstances. Now, we have an opportunity to align our words and deeds better. This is another change that should be made before we proceed to elect a new King—and another reason to proceed with a little less Woolley-Now!-Now!-Now!-ism.
Royal Woolleys forever? We're electing Woolley and his kids forever? Wait a minute: didn't we just have a rather embarrassing problem with this whole automatic heir-to-the-throne business?
What consensus? Lord Hooligan claims that a consensus of Talossans—minus me, a former PM, the current PM, the Regent, an Uppermost Cort Justice, another regular citizen and 21 other Talossans—want to stick the Crown on Woolley's head. Maybe all those who have sponsored the Hand-Over-All-Power-to-Woolley-the-Taxhappy bill will remain steadfast supporters of the Talossan Who Wants to Take Your Hard-Earned Money Away despite any debate that ensues….but that debate is just starting now.
How absolute the knave is! We must speak by the card or equivocation will undo us!
Okay, okay! That was my conscience speaking. It forces me to admit this much: Not all factual claims in this post are—strictly speaking—exactly veridical. Some, in fact, aren't. Still, my inwit tells me the arguments aren't daft. Alas poor Yorick!
|
|
|
Post by Joel Wood on Dec 11, 2006 0:29:50 GMT -6
Mud slinging already?
Would that I had a bench to spout my platform from...when I rise know I do so humbly from the dirt, from the back because I feel I speak from the bottom up and not the top down, sir, I speak with the people. Chain your dogs, the throne is empty, defense is unnecessary.
Is this the alternative? I mean are you gentlemen serious? Honest, sincere proposals are met with sarcasm and pedantic calls for patience while those calling the loudest impatiently request the will of some be erased so that they can take the matter firmly in hand and deliberate.
|
|
Hooligan
Squirrel King of Arms; Cunstaval to Maricopa
Posts: 7,325
Talossan Since: 7-12-2005
Motto: PRIMA CAPIAM POCULA
Baron Since: 11-20-2005
Count Since: 9-8-2012
|
Post by Hooligan on Dec 11, 2006 1:46:24 GMT -6
Lord Hooligan, with the utmost respect, responds to Lord Laurieir.
Income Tax. I know Sir John very well. Personally. Very closely. I am not a member of his party, however, so perhaps there are things I am not privy to (and which Lord L, also not a member of the CLP, is?). But I would be quite surprised if the accusation that Sir John, should he be elected to the throne, "is planning to impose a 75 percent income tax on all Talossans within 2 minutes of having the Crown placed on his head" has any merit. First of all, 75 percent of what? Seventy-five percent of our real-life actual-money income?? That's incredible! No one would contemplate such a thing. No one. Certainly not John Woolley. It's enough, frankly, to make me laugh, and I hope that Lord Laurieir included this accusation for this very purpose. Here's a deal for you -- if Sir John is elected, and he proposes that, let's not vote for it. And if somehow he gets 2/3rds of the Ziu to agree to it, so that it passes and any veto he might get to use to stop a repeal of such a silly act cannot possibly be overriden, let's not pay it. And if he gets mad, let's overthrow him. And if we can't, because (apparently) everyone in the nation but you and me are happily cutting off their arms and legs for no reason whatsoever, let's renounce. In fact, I'll be quicker to the door than you will. You see, there is really no chance whatsoever that Sir John is planning any such thing. Is this scare tactics? If there's one thing Sir John is not, it's a tax-happy person.
Bill withdrawal request. Thanks for withdrawing your request that we not discuss what more than three-quarters of the Cosâ think is the proper thing to do. In return, I will agree not to request that it be Clarked until one of the bill's other fifteen sponsors asks for me to do so.
Why patience? I posted the bill when I did because I feared Sir John would soon get wind of it. I am surprised I need to do so, but I will point out that the only way a King can be elected is in a one-candidate election. One man's name will be put before the nation -- not a number of them. The Organic Law says that the Ziu elects one man to be the one put before the nation. The only way the Ziu can do that is by passing a bill to put one man's name before the nation. The only way the Ziu can pass such a bill is by it being written and put into the Hopper. If someone wants to write a bill with someone else's name on it, no one is stopping them. But everything that I have done is what is supposed to be done, according to law, to elect a King. I will read past the "Lord Hooligan's Bow-Before-Woolley" reference, except to say that this, and many other phrases are, well, worth only reading past.
Misapplied veneration. The Organic Law says that the nation owes its existence to the King. This was true of King Robert I. It will always be true of him. But the Organic Law also says that when the throne is vacant, it shall be filled. If this means that we can only fill the throne with King Robert I, we may have a long wait. And someday -- God willing, a long time from now -- King Robert I, like all of us, will be no more. Does that mean Talossa will die with him? No. Talossa lives. It is a tribute to him that it lives, and the writers of Organic Law (Dan among them) knew that there would be a time when Robert I would not be King, and when the statement about the nation owing its existence to its (current) King would not be technically true. Do we, in Talossa, owe our existence to any of us here today? No, we do not. And yet Organic Law says that one of us must be elected King. Do we ignore Organic Law, or do we follow it? Given that (as Dan pointed out) we have just had a King to whom we, as a nation, did not owe our existence (Louis I), and given that it was Robert I who arranged for Louis to be King, do we believe that he, in naming Louis as heir, was violating Organic Law? I don't. Anyway, enough about that. No wait, one more thing -- and Sir John, I know this will not come as a surprise to you -- I don't venerate you. Veneration is for saints. But you'd make a great King of Talossa.
Royal Woolleys forever? Organic Law says what a King is and it says we should have one. Change the name "Woolley" to something else in your "Royal Woolleys forever?" question, and it sounds like you would still disagree??? I do not understand your argument at all here. Talossa is a hereditary monarchy. Are you saying we should ignore this? Elect a King who is not hereditary? Change the very fabric of our nation? Abolish everything that King Robert I, to whom we owe our existence, set up? Or are you simply saying that you prefer some name other than "Woolley"? We have eighty or more citizens in the Kingdom -- choose a name; we must -- one of us must take the (hereditary) throne. Choose the name X, and will you ask "Royal X's forever?" and claim we should not elect X because we know not what X's great-great-great-granddaughter might do? We will never have a King if this is the thinking. Is it the position of the Defenders of the Throne that the only throne worth defending is an empty seat cushion? We didn't make the rules. But we play by them and we agree with them and we're loyal to them. We don't want Talossa to be something it's not. We are not a Republic. We are not a dictatorship. We are a constitutional hereditary monarchy. That's what we've been since 1979. I really don't understand what issue you have with this.
What consensus? There's a lot to read past in this one. All I did was propose, and what was proposed has sgnificant support. If there are those who do not join the consensus and who choose, therefore, not to acknowledge it as such, well, that's fine. I'd kind of appreciate it, though, if what was proposed were not portrayed as somehow in violation of the best interests of the Kingdom, and as somehow outside -- as opposed to exactly in line with -- Organic Law, and, most insultingly, as some kind of grasp for power?? Words like "hasty," "rush," and "impetuous" are incendiary (and a bit insulting considering the time, thought, and effort put in by so many Talossans on this most important subject), although I have tried to ignore them, because the same words could have been used about the sudden need to quickly abdicate our former King and give us what a monarchy abhors -- an empty throne.
I would thank your conscience not to refer to me as a knave.
Lord Hooligan, with the utmost respect, bows as the most humble and obedient servant of the most esteemed Lord Laurieir.
|
|
Sir Samuhel Tecladeir
Citizen since 8-22-2005; Knight since 10-23-2006
If you don't rock the boat, no one will know it's sinking.
Posts: 436
|
Post by Sir Samuhel Tecladeir on Dec 11, 2006 9:52:25 GMT -6
Just a thought: I think Dan is referring to debating on the floor and then proposing the one name as opposed to proposing one name at a time and seeing who wins first.
|
|
Prince Patrick
Citizen since 8-23-2005; Prince since 3-14-2007; Duke since 8-6-2011
Citizen and Governor of Florencia; His Highness, Prince Patrick, Duke of Florencia
Posts: 208
Duke Since: 8-6-2011
|
Post by Prince Patrick on Dec 11, 2006 13:11:15 GMT -6
That's not quite how he put it.
|
|
|
Post by Geoff Holdorf on Dec 11, 2006 13:49:41 GMT -6
I have not been online in quite a while due to an on-going deployment in Iraq, and am quite honestly amazed at what has become of this Kingdom. If I am correct, this is the Kingdom of Talossa, and not the Republic. This means, to me, that we ALL believe their shall forever be a King. The throne is empty. Why let the seat remain unfilled? Are we benefited by having a vacant seat on the throne in some unseen way? I do not think we should fill the throne with just any-ol-someone ASAP. I feel the person proposed deserves a fair and rational debate, and is indeed a worthy candidate. He is most certainly not the only one I can think of, but is probably one of the best. I speak from the point of view of a basic citizen, with not near the clout of the wonderful gentlemen who have been here for so many years. Yet all I see is the mud slinging and slander generally associated with American elections. I think we can do better.
|
|
Capt. Sir Mick Preston
Capitán of the Zouaves
Posts: 6,511
Talossan Since: 9-21-2006
Knight Since: 10-12-2010
Motto: Cuimhnichibh air na daoine bho'n d'thainig sibh
|
Post by Capt. Sir Mick Preston on Dec 11, 2006 16:09:42 GMT -6
Lord Lauriéir , Lord Hooligan- Can I ask for some points of clarification?
"Because Sir John—...—is planning to impose a 75 percent income tax on all Talossans within 2 minutes of having the Crown placed on his head. " I've looked all over for suggested Tax. I'm rather new here- can you point me in the right direction for this proposed Tax you refer to?
"Second, I would like to see us consider possibly keeping the throne empty—under the protection of a new office (a retooled Regent or Steward or Guardian or Seat-Warmer)—until a true worthy emerged to sit there."
What is a "True Worthy" King? What are your definitions for that?
Is Talossa a " constitutional hereditary monarchy" - meaning it will be ruled by a family? If so, do we also need to look at the current offspring of any Candidate, and any other Generations of relatives they might have hanging around? If the offspring and potential Heirs are current citizens, should we also debate thier merits as future Monarchs? Should we look at their past performance , if they have held office?
Conversly, If we don't grant Hereditary status to our Monarch, but instead vote in the next Monarch and each succeding Monarch - isn't that more like a Presidency, or a Premiership?
I'm not 100% sure I understand your arguements. Could you clairify them for me?
Thank you ahead of time- I appreciate it!
|
|
|
Post by Joel Wood on Dec 11, 2006 18:53:35 GMT -6
I am sorry, but I fail to see how childishly and ridiculously painting serious affairs as "The Woolley Woo Hoo" Movement is anything other than the "Old Guard's" attempt to wrest control of a Kingdom that grew because of them. These tactics are rudimentary and embarrassing and honestly I expected more from us. A seat warmer? A True worthy? Don't insult me please, this is offensive. The Defenders of the Throne will certainly keep the throne safe and EMPTY until they have found the proper bottom, THEIR BOTTOM to fill it. There is no need for name calling, type casting or mud throwing. That honest intentions from so many are being met with such sarcasm and inanity as "taxes" is shameful and while I am being told this is for the good of us all I fail to see how negativity is good for anyone.
|
|
|
Post by Nic Casálmac'h on Dec 11, 2006 22:07:24 GMT -6
I fail to understand it myself. However the one who started the Defenders of the Throne is Lord Lauriéir and he has mentioned that he does not wish the throne for himself, so I do not think this is accurate.
Wow. That is amazing considering how recently you started your party. I have been wondering about all the other citizens who have not been very vocal here, neither in normal affairs nor in the matter of the election. Are many of these among the members of your party?
|
|
Danihel Laurieir
Citizen since 7-1981; Count since 2-23-2006
Videbimus Omnes
Posts: 400
|
Post by Danihel Laurieir on Dec 11, 2006 22:25:16 GMT -6
Nic:
About that claim I made about having 27 members in the Defenders of Throne Party...that must have been a typo. We have--as far as I know--1 member. But that's a start!
Mick:
I do intend to answer your questions soon...Have you read the "Three Theses" thread that CMS linked to? The tax thing must have been a typo, too. Whoops.
|
|
Capt. Sir Mick Preston
Capitán of the Zouaves
Posts: 6,511
Talossan Since: 9-21-2006
Knight Since: 10-12-2010
Motto: Cuimhnichibh air na daoine bho'n d'thainig sibh
|
Post by Capt. Sir Mick Preston on Dec 11, 2006 22:35:04 GMT -6
Lord Lauriéir - No, I missed the "Three Theses" reference. What thread was it in?
(And, if it was in THIS thread, I am being incredibly dense. But it's Monday, so I call for a Mulligan.)
Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by Joel Wood on Dec 11, 2006 23:35:00 GMT -6
Lord Lauriéir, I am beginning to take this entire "thing" in a much more tongue in cheek manner and apologize if I have offered any offense.
Sincerely,
Joel
Taxes.....
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2006 8:45:02 GMT -6
I don't believe there is anything preventing anybody from composing a bill just like Lord Hooligan has in favor of another candidate. So why dump on Lord Hooligan when you could be proposing your own bills?
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Dec 12, 2006 9:38:39 GMT -6
Lord Lauriéir - No, I missed the "Three Theses" reference. What thread was it in? In my message here I linked to the "Three Theses" thread.
|
|