|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Aug 3, 2015 7:42:02 GMT -6
For everyone's future reference: If I criticize your bill then remain silent as your bill remains unchanged, I haven't changed my mind. I just don't see the need to repeat what you already read. Please think about what you said, and then think about what deliberation, discussion, and legislation have in common, and then look at that sentence again. |
|
|
|
Post by Sevastáin Pinátsch on Aug 3, 2015 8:10:45 GMT -6
Please think about what you said, and then think about what deliberation, discussion, and legislation have in common, and then look at that sentence again. Your chiding is unnecessary, and further, inappropriate. I was quite keen to accept changes to The Democratic Amendment. In fact, the only wording suggestion that wasn't incorporated was one that was submitted after the Bill had already been Clarked. Had it been submitted to me on time, it would have been folded in. I appreciate the same openness in others. I plainly objected it was--and still is--completely foolish to mix a simple slam-dunk immigration bill with this Phoolishness but there was no give on splitting the bill. I accept that this was an important bill to him and that my disagreement lay at the very foundation. I understand that he didn't want to change it, and why. My inability to support it shouldn't come as any surprise. |
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Aug 3, 2015 8:43:54 GMT -6
It is your previous statement that lacks openness, Senator. I do not see how pointing that out were inappropriate.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sevastáin Pinátsch on Aug 3, 2015 10:13:54 GMT -6
It is your previous statement that lacks openness, Senator. I do not see how pointing that out were inappropriate. I suppose half my life ago I had more time and inclination to go on fool's errands like pressuring someone to cut their bill in two. Do what you will, and call it legislating if you like. You're more of a politicky politician than you admit. |
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Aug 3, 2015 10:48:47 GMT -6
Wait, wait...
You said: as long as whoever, having proposed a bill which I oppose, does not change their bill, then it is futile to try to initiate a discussion about that bill, because no amount of exchange, and clarification will change my mind. No, you mandate that the person “remain silent”.
Call me crazy, but telling fellow legislators to “remain silent” on legislative matters, initiating debates, etc., is inappropriate the last time that I checked.
And what does your last post: have anything to do with me trying to point out how... well... arrogant your position on discussions about bills you oppose seemed? And saying that you were open to changes on the Democratic Amendment is, I think, a different matter: it was your bill, and you were (quite comprehensively) interested in coming to as many compromises, in order to get broader support, as possible.
Last but not least, I wonder; how is it politicky when I react indignantly to your behaviour? I say what I think, I take a firm stand on my beliefs, and I don't do the pokerface-routine (recently renamed to Merkel-routine). When have I been deceptive, ambiguous, or covertly disrespectful?
If I am misunderstanding you, then I apologise profusely. But your behaviour is very, very hostile.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sevastáin Pinátsch on Aug 3, 2015 11:13:07 GMT -6
Call me crazy, but telling fellow legislators to “remain silent” on legislative matters, initiating debates, etc., is inappropriate the last time that I checked. Well, you might be crazy, but only in as much as you believe I told any of my fellow legislators to remain silent. I, personally, will be silent. I, personally, am not inclined to continue to prod at someone whose position is quite clear. His bill is his creation, his child, etc.; he doesn't want to cut it in half any more than he would his child. Understood. But I'm not going to support a bill with that degree of fundamental disagreement. |
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001 
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Aug 3, 2015 19:29:29 GMT -6
I understand concerns about creating another position that will never be filled, but the jester position will clearly be filled. If no successor to S:da Shapera can be found, eliminate the position then. No need to do so before we even find out if it is a viable office (which, IMHO, it is).
|
|
|
|
Post by Munditenens Tresplet on Aug 3, 2015 20:24:50 GMT -6
Since it hasn't been brought up in this thread yet, my concern with the Phoole Act is the blanket prohibition of the Jester holding any other government office in the Kingdom. Rather than enumerate specific offices, it just says "offices", which looks like it would not only would prohibit the Jester from doing something within the Civil Service, but it also seems to be in-Organic if such a prohibition extends to a legislative position (like MC or Senator, but potentially provincial legislatures as well).
Can I inquire, respectfully, as to why such a broad prohibition was added to the bill?
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Aug 3, 2015 20:30:22 GMT -6
As S:da Shapera pointed out, fools were traditionally useful because they had no ambition, and therefore would always tell it like it is. I thought this was a good addition to the bill then, especially since S:da Shapera herself said she would support such a provision.
|
|
|
|
Post by Françal Ian Lux on Aug 3, 2015 22:45:00 GMT -6
As S:da Shapera pointed out, fools were traditionally useful because they had no ambition, and therefore would always tell it like it is. I thought this was a good addition to the bill then, especially since S:da Shapera herself said she would support such a provision. My other issue with that provision is that it would basically encourage her to not be as active or active at all. Sure, her job will be fun for awhile, but after that, in the end she doesn't really have a leg to stand on in Talossa. You can see a similar situation with the Justices. They're forbidden from any politicking so you rarely see them |
|
Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă
Puisne (Associate) Justice of the Uppermost Court
Fraichetz dels punts, es non dels mürs
Posts: 4,063
Talossan Since: 9-23-2012
|
Post by Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă on Aug 4, 2015 3:17:01 GMT -6
As S:da Shapera pointed out, fools were traditionally useful because they had no ambition, and therefore would always tell it like it is. I thought this was a good addition to the bill then, especially since S:da Shapera herself said she would support such a provision. My other issue with that provision is that it would basically encourage her to not be as active or active at all. Sure, her job will be fun for awhile, but after that, in the end she doesn't really have a leg to stand on in Talossa. You can see a similar situation with the Justices. They're forbidden from any politicking so you rarely see them Ah, not true! Justices can be MCs. |
|
Lüc da Schir
Senator for Benito
If Italy wins a Six Nations match I will join the Zouaves
Posts: 4,125
Talossan Since: 3-21-2012
|
Post by Lüc da Schir on Aug 4, 2015 4:31:50 GMT -6
I don't get why everyone seems to think that only politicians are active in Talossa and politics is the only way to remain active. Inxheneu Crova doesn't seem to be affiliated with any party, nor does he hold seats, yet he's been producing brilliant pieces of journalism lately. He's more active than a lot of MZs.
|
|
|
|
Post by Munditenens Tresplet on Aug 4, 2015 11:35:11 GMT -6
I don't get why everyone seems to think that only politicians are active in Talossa and politics is the only way to remain active. Inxheneu Crova doesn't seem to be affiliated with any party, nor does he hold seats, yet he's been producing brilliant pieces of journalism lately. He's more active than a lot of MZs. Tell me, what is the subject of most of Inxheneu Crova's articles? |
|
Lüc da Schir
Senator for Benito
If Italy wins a Six Nations match I will join the Zouaves
Posts: 4,125
Talossan Since: 3-21-2012
|
Post by Lüc da Schir on Aug 4, 2015 12:01:28 GMT -6
Tell me, what is the subject of most of Inxheneu Crova's articles? Inxheneu Crova doesn't seem to be affiliated with any party, nor does he hold seats, yet he's been producing brilliant pieces of journalism lately. He's more active than a lot of MZs. You don't seem to get my point. I'm still looking for where I initially assumed that writing articles about politics (which no article or provision can and will ever ban) is equal to holding political offices, legislative or executive (which is indeed not possible for holders of other offices). My point was that it's not true that holding and/or running for offices (which I believe Françal referred to as "politicking") is the only thing that keeps Talossans interested. I made a valid example and I'll add my friend Glüc who doesn't currently hold any national (federal) office. |
|
|
|
Post by Munditenens Tresplet on Aug 4, 2015 13:44:45 GMT -6
Tell me, what is the subject of most of Inxheneu Crova's articles? Inxheneu Crova doesn't seem to be affiliated with any party, nor does he hold seats, yet he's been producing brilliant pieces of journalism lately. He's more active than a lot of MZs. You don't seem to get my point. I'm still looking for where I initially assumed that writing articles about politics (which no article or provision can and will ever ban) is equal to holding political offices, legislative or executive (which is indeed not possible for holders of other offices). I don't get why everyone seems to think that only politicians are active in Talossa and politics is the only way to remain active. Your post was nothing more than an oft repeated cliché--used by most every politician in Talossa--"Talossa is more than just politics." |
|
