|
Post by Owen Edwards on Mar 21, 2008 12:15:22 GMT -6
I think the logic behind this is solid - if we are basing our territorial assignments on certain ideas (ie states in a particular province relate to particular ideas), this makes sense and is a strictly procedural matter.
O
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Feb 24, 2008 16:22:23 GMT -6
Niclau,
I would first say the Hopper is for use in suggesting legislatioin and discussing t; Witt is best for enquiries like this.
As for taking part in politics, obviously taking part in party discussions is a good place to start. If you are assigned Cosa seats or become a Senator, you can discuss legislation in a more official capacity.
Be sure to add me on googletalk - iamtheoneandonly.
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Feb 18, 2008 3:08:34 GMT -6
The Whatchu Talkin' Bout Willis Act
WHEREAS, at present, Gloria Estefan is Talossa's National Entertainer (33RZ6); and
WHEREAS Gloria Estefan is Cuban-Floridian, and even the most creative geographer would not suggest this fell within the GTA; and
WHEREAS Al Jarreau is from Maricopa, and could easily be the scat singer in any prospectuve Talossan jazz quartet; and
WHEREAS Charlotte Rae is from Milwaukee, is skilled in singing, dancing and acting, and was involved in two of the best shows the world has yet produced; and
WHEREAS, even if you can't place her name, a quick use of Google will bring a flood of childhood memories back to you, including antics with Gary Coleman and Molly Ringwald; and
WHEREAS it is better for a Talossan to present entertainment to Talossans and Talossan entertainment to the world; and
WHEREAS it is also good to hold on to tradition; and
WHEREAS we all appreciate Diff'rent Strokes;
The Ziu hereby resolves that:
1) Al Jarreau be adopted as the National Entertainer of Talossa, replacing Gloria Estefan.
2) Gloria Estefan and Charlotte Rae be created Extraordinary Guest Stars of Talossan Entertainment, a purely honourary title for those fantastic entertainers without a personal link to Talossa.
Uréu q'estadra sa: Owen Edwards (LRT-Cezembre)
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Feb 18, 2008 3:07:16 GMT -6
It's a scary thing when we have a surplus...we, Talossa...some fool will come up with a pension plan soon...
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Feb 26, 2008 7:11:47 GMT -6
I think MC Caceir's willingness to take things slowly is an extremely admirable thing, and the LRT fully supports the intent of this bill.
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Feb 20, 2008 2:39:48 GMT -6
Well unless someone here speaks Albanian, proper relations will be difficult - we can hardly ring their foreign ministry for a chat without the proper impressive credentials and asking them to speak English.
A letter, with contact details and a brief background, seems best.
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Feb 19, 2008 15:44:25 GMT -6
I think a direct action associated with an official recognition would be a good thing, definitely.
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Feb 16, 2008 12:05:46 GMT -6
I like this Bill, and I think AD's amendment suggestion makes it clearer. I think the ideas of actually having the a physical involvement in the enacting of laws, and a record for posterity, are great. It certainly fits into my general thinking on keeping hard copies of our history!
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Feb 11, 2008 17:59:07 GMT -6
Good stuff.
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Feb 19, 2008 18:25:59 GMT -6
Mick's point was people can still criticize the Bill here if they want.
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Feb 19, 2008 17:13:44 GMT -6
As made clear elsewhere, I don't take especially kind to being told of my purposes and motives.
I think finding links to examples of times where government has directed culture and language is a time-consuming and pointless exercise; a glance at British history, at least, would turn up more than enough examples. S4C and the Welsh language movement, for instance, springs to mind without much consideration. Or procedural Bills regarding terms of contention, which have been semi-regular in Parliament, at least, throughout its existence.
The difference we are having is not what you seem to think it is - it's a matter of degrees rather.
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Feb 19, 2008 15:58:00 GMT -6
Sevastain, I think your particular objection did not seem based upon the numerous "well it's a decent idea but it should be done differently" responses here and in the general discussion surrounding the definition of, say, Cestour.
Alexander, if I said precisely that legislatures weekly passed bills dictating language, I am sorry for any confusion, though I don't remember phrasing it like that. You acknowledge that such Bills can happen in anticipation of issues (and certainly in the past legislatures have passed Bills affecting a nation's culture - god bless Lord Reith), and given the fact this is an extant issue (re it being a political and cultural issue for a number of people and organizations). So that precise objection to the basis of this Bill is somewhat weakened, no?
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Feb 19, 2008 8:49:55 GMT -6
Xhorxh evidently considers it an important definition to make.
I think the proposing MC to respond to any questions about precise wording, and encourage him to do so.
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Feb 19, 2008 7:17:46 GMT -6
So, in fact, it's alwaready EXPLICITLY a political issue of use...
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Feb 19, 2008 3:29:38 GMT -6
Yes Alexander, but *I'm* funny. *grins*
The MC Hoppered and Clarked this as a private member's bill, and so I can't respond to the point about where the debate is.
As far as I can see, the only claim I have made that might really require substantiation (even by your standards above) is that legislatures at times will, in anticipation of an event, legislate or advise on legal terms. I can certainly seek to provide you with examples, though I suggest we make that a private discussion when I have the time and space (ie, have a laptop of my own back, am not out, etc, etc) - I don't see me linking to a 1920s House of Commons Bill or something swinging the debate here, when even you acknowledge it would not be unprecedented for a Bill at least AKIN to this to be proposed elsewhere (your precise disagreement being that you find it unlikely that it would be proposed without a heavily pressing cause).
|
|