|
Post by BertramStantrous on Sept 19, 2003 0:55:51 GMT -5
...and as for Bertram Stantrous's statement of his qualifications, why shouldn't every nation that uses subversive tactics in policing be given a Senate seat? I, for one, would suggest more proofs of the credentials you boast that merit senatorial status, but as I am not a member of the Pacific or the United Nations, it is not my place to request such things. Carry on with your duties, and may you be deemed worthy by your charge, the nations of the Pacific, whose defense has now been entrusted to you. Hear that? Not a member of the Pacific. He/she said so him/herself.
|
|
Francos Spain
Our Blessed and Chosen Leader of the Pacific
Posts: 496
|
Post by Francos Spain on Sept 19, 2003 14:46:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Lesser Cambodia on Sept 22, 2003 13:51:25 GMT -5
Thank you, Francos, for defending my status as a Pacific nation. As for you, BertramStantrous, I believe I owe you an apology for my unintended attempt at sabotaging the sensitive nature of your post in the Pacific's government. Forgive my ill-given hostilities, and please accept my congratulations on your appointment.
|
|
|
Post by BertramStantrous on Sept 23, 2003 10:11:11 GMT -5
I apologize, too, Lesser Cambodia. My previous statements were uncalled for.
|
|
Francos Spain
Our Blessed and Chosen Leader of the Pacific
Posts: 496
|
Post by Francos Spain on Oct 12, 2003 4:41:14 GMT -5
A loyal, hard-working, and honorable nation, I hereby appoint Zhdanov to the Senate. May he continue his selfless service to the region. He shall also inherit the title Protector of Pacific Society.
Addionally, Poskrebyshev, who has served most admirably as one of the Pacific's original Senators and who, in my two week absence as Delegate, ran the region in a manner befitting the interests of the Pacific and the NPO to the utmost degree, has earned the position of Grand Viceroy of the Pacific. He shall now carry authority and privileges fully equal to those of the Delegate.
|
|
|
Post by SneakThief on Oct 14, 2003 13:40:58 GMT -5
Congratulations to everyone that is in the Senate and may your terms be peaceful, although for some reason I doubt that it will be, at least from what I hear out there in NS, but one can always hope. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Sugar Bear on Oct 24, 2003 23:42:53 GMT -5
"In the US, they appoint Supreme Court Justices without any input from the people, and they are the pinnicle of democracy."
That is incorrect as Supreme Court Justices are appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the members of the US Senate, which members are elected by the people, and who don't hesitate to block objectional nominations.
|
|
Francos Spain
Our Blessed and Chosen Leader of the Pacific
Posts: 496
|
Post by Francos Spain on Oct 25, 2003 4:18:59 GMT -5
Zhdanov having served his purpose to the NPO, it is my honor and privilege to announce that Mammothistan will be relieving him of his position effective immediately. Mammothistan shall inherit all offices and take on all duties of his predecessor.
|
|
|
Post by Alantino on Oct 26, 2003 3:57:50 GMT -5
Rome was an affront to democracy and an insult to liberty. Any nation with Roman aspirations is a threat to the security and well-being of all others if in a position of power. Since Francos Spain has not openly endorsed such crass political views, I do not associate him with such things, and I would greatly appreciate reinforcement concerning this from him. OOC: Actually Rome invented the latin language, and they were the first for many things. After brutal monarchy, the revolt and over throwing of the monarchy, the Romans needed a new government. They took democracy from the greeks, and monarchy from their last government and mixed it together. The emperor had full power, but the senate, tribune and other branches of the government had worked together as a democracy, voting and debating on various of issues. Romans conquered spain, greece, germania, gauls etc. After the fall of the empire from corruption (as is always the case in every empire that existed), and the barbarian invasion. Each territory that the Romans ran created their own versions of latin, especially spain. When the spaniards conquered much of south america, they were forced to learn their version of latin that the romans taught the spaniards to begin with. Also, by raping the tribal villagers for years, pop comes the "latin americans". In reality, the only true latins were the Romans, and the italians would be latin if the language weren't dead. Yet the mexicans pop up calling themselves latin that insults me and my roman ancestry. They aren't even a race, they're mixed with so many things that they can be a walking United Nations. If the latin language still existed, it would be the italians, but it's dead, therefore there is no "latino" or "latina" anymore. Even so, stating Roman way of life is a "threat" makes no sense. That was two (2) thousand years ago, we are in modern times old friend. If it were to run in that structure, it would be very modern and interesting. Here is a post by a good friend of mine who is also Italian. www.totse.com/en/politics/the_world_beyond_the_usa/themeaningofth170698.html
|
|
|
Post by Mammothistan on Oct 26, 2003 13:09:13 GMT -5
Interjection: Alantino, my people once invaded and slaughtered your people. Then again, you did the same to my people and enslaved some of them. Crazy fella.
|
|
|
Post by BertramStantrous on Oct 28, 2003 4:05:29 GMT -5
"In the US, they appoint Supreme Court Justices without any input from the people, and they are the pinnicle of democracy." That is incorrect as Supreme Court Justices are appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the members of the US Senate, which members are elected by the people, and who don't hesitate to block objectional nominations. Again, the people are merely electing someone to elect someone. They have input on who they elect into the Senate, but not on who they elect into the Supreme Court. Just another problem with the US's outdated electoral college.
|
|
|
Post by Megnoman on Oct 28, 2003 19:50:33 GMT -5
If you don't like it Bertram, move to China....
|
|
|
Post by BertramStantrous on Oct 29, 2003 0:52:55 GMT -5
Well, thank you for your blunt and insulting post, Megnoman, but you seem to be forgetting what America is all about. Part of what makes America so great is its flexibility. If we don't like something about the country, we change it, instead of "moving to China," as you so intelligently put it. Besides, your statement doesn't make sense in the first place, as China is a communist country that doesn't even allow elections, but I won't go on. The electoral college is actually under great debate right now, which is why I bring it up. Of course, it is useful for our leaders to make certain decisions in the government without the consent of the people, otherwise we'd be going to the voting booths every day. But electing people to elect our leaders?
The reason I say this is outdated is because the idea was formed back when most of the people in the country were concentrated in the Eastern part of the US. None of the interests of the Western half were getting noticed, because there weren't enough people there to make their votes count. The electoral college was formed so that votes were dedicated to states, not the people. Oregon would have the same voting power as New York, for instance. Now, while this was all well and good at the time, it is outdated now, because no longer is the country divided in the same way as it was before. This is what I meant.
By the way, if you find it important to continue this conversation, please post it in another thread instead of cluttering this one up. The Senate will appreciate it.
|
|
|
Post by Abysseria on Oct 30, 2003 14:14:13 GMT -5
Again, the people are merely electing someone to elect someone. They have input on who they elect into the Senate, but not on who they elect into the Supreme Court. Just another problem with the US's outdated electoral college. Representative democracy is the underpinning of a balanced and sensible society governed by checks and balances. The US's fore-fathers saw this long before the problem arised. Many feared true democracy and called it mob-ocracy. Representative democracy not only permits for the will of the majority, but protects the minority from the tramplings of the majority. Checks and balances are crucial to prevent government from becoming tyranny or disorganized chaos. If you are looking for a lesson in failed representative government, look no further than California. A state that has turned to public referendum instead of checked and balanced legislation has descended into chaos - debt, stagnant educational system, slow economic growth. This list goes on and on. The United States' government has been so effective in the past because it ensures that the majority of the nation can support legislated policies that remain true to democratic principles. When you say that people elect people, but have no say in who gets elected to the Supreme Court, you are, in one way, right and another wrong. The people elect the President, who must consult with the legislature. Both are representatives of the people. The Supreme Court's purpose, even in its nature, is not to cater to either other branch of government, but to ensure that each does not exceed its power. It is the ultimate check on executive and legislative power. If anything, the Supreme Court is the guard of representative government, not a failing of it.
|
|
Jpo
Serf
Posts: 1
|
Post by Jpo on Oct 30, 2003 22:10:28 GMT -5
Sense I am new to this game I don't know if my input will be of much weight, but I believe that we conserve the Pacific realm much better by having a council rather than a senate. By letting each state attend to it’s own local affairs it could give us more time to deal with more important issue, for the betterment of the Pacific.
|
|