|
Title: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on January 13, 2011, 01:12:05 AM Welcome, one and all to the Pacific Supreme Council!
As the current Lt. Governor, I will be serving as the Leader of the Council, a sort of President Pro Tempore if you will. It is my responsibility to facilitate debate, votes, and break ties. So yes, as our first act, I believe we should start creating a Council Rulebook, so we have set procedures for all debates, votes, and other council business. Sadly, I cannot work on such a task alone for the time being mainly because I'm extremely busy this week, so let us begin brainstorming! :) Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Хahar 🤔 on January 13, 2011, 01:28:22 AM I don't think we need set rules. The Mideast Assembly worked well for a long time without them.
Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on January 13, 2011, 01:36:43 AM I don't think we need set rules. The Mideast Assembly worked well for a long time without them. Well, that is true. But I just think we should have some sort of guideline so we don't have any issues later on. Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Badger on January 13, 2011, 01:37:01 AM I don't think we need set rules. The Mideast Assembly worked well for a long time without them. And still does! ;D Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: CatoMinor on January 13, 2011, 01:38:02 AM Should we elect a President Pro-Tempor or a Speaker or something? (Not to try and steal a certain Lt Gov's job :P )
Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: RI on January 13, 2011, 01:57:06 AM Should we elect a President Pro-Tempor or a Speaker or something? (Not to try and steal a certain Lt Gov's job :P ) I initially thought about going with that, but it seems a little unnecessary when there are only 4 or 5 members on the Council. Furthermore, having the 'chair' not be part of the voting membership is preferable in my opinion as it limits bias and equalizes the power relationships. As long as the Lt. Governor does his job (now that he actually has one :P ), that is. ;) Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on January 13, 2011, 02:24:53 AM Well I started the thread on time, didn't I? :P
Anyway, the process according to the law should be something like this: Law proposed -> Debate for a day or two -> Vote -> Send it to the People's Assembly for a final vote. Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 13, 2011, 08:02:47 AM Congratulations to or new councilors, I hope you will enjoy your new job. :)
Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Oakvale on January 13, 2011, 02:57:58 PM *feels warm and fuzzy*
A real change for the better in our region, I think. :) Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on January 13, 2011, 03:41:31 PM Well I started the thread on time, didn't I? :P Anyway, the process according to the law should be something like this: Law proposed -> Debate for a day or two -> Vote -> Send it to the People's Assembly for a final vote. Sounds good. :) Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on January 13, 2011, 07:40:32 PM So yes....who wants to propose the landmark first law?
Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on January 14, 2011, 10:52:45 PM So yes....who wants to propose the landmark first law? The debate rules you mentioned sound good. Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on January 15, 2011, 01:24:11 AM So yes....who wants to propose the landmark first law? The debate rules you mentioned sound good. Well if you guys want to debate whether or not the guidelines should be passed as a law, I won't stop you.:P Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on January 15, 2011, 05:26:13 PM Anyone want to debate the rules provided by Archangel?
Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: CatoMinor on January 15, 2011, 09:19:12 PM Anyone want to debate the rules provided by Archangel? Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on January 16, 2011, 06:32:47 PM Anyone want to debate the rules provided by Archangel? Yes, I agree. Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on January 16, 2011, 06:46:00 PM Okay, here's a draft:
Quote Rules for: Legislation and Debate processes in the Pacific Supreme Council Written by Archangel and Mr. Fuzzleton Section: 1.) Any bill that is proposed to the Pacific Supreme Council will not be debated on for longer than 3 days. 2.) Any Pacific Councilor may introduce a bill to the Council Body 3.) Any bill which faces a tie vote in the Council Body will be sent to the Lt. Governor, who will decide the bill's fate. 4.) Any bill which is passed by the the Council Body will be sent to the Pacific Citizens for confirmation, and if passed by the citizens it is sent to the governor to sign or veto/silent veto. Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on January 16, 2011, 09:05:36 PM Okay, here's a draft: Quote Rules for: Legislation and Debate processes in the Pacific Supreme Council Written by Archangel and Mr. Fuzzleton Section: 1.) Any bill that is proposed to the Pacific Supreme Council will not be debated on for longer than 3 days. 2.) Any Pacific Councilor may introduce a bill to the Council Body 3.) Any bill which faces a tie vote in the Council Body will be sent to the Lt. Governor, who will decide the bill's fate. 4.) Any bill which is passed by the the Council Body will be sent to the Pacific Citizens for confirmation, and if passed by the citizens it is sent to the governor to sign or veto/silent veto. With Fuzzy's bill, I don't think there are any objections to putting this to a vote. Voting will be open for a 48 hour period since it's simply procedural rules. Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: RI on January 16, 2011, 09:47:07 PM Is voting open?
Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on January 16, 2011, 11:41:10 PM Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on January 16, 2011, 11:41:45 PM Okay, here's a draft: Quote Rules for: Legislation and Debate processes in the Pacific Supreme Council Written by Archangel and Mr. Fuzzleton Section: 1.) Any bill that is proposed to the Pacific Supreme Council will not be debated on for longer than 3 days. 2.) Any Pacific Councilor may introduce a bill to the Council Body 3.) Any bill which faces a tie vote in the Council Body will be sent to the Lt. Governor, who will decide the bill's fate. 4.) Any bill which is passed by the the Council Body will be sent to the Pacific Citizens for confirmation, and if passed by the citizens it is sent to the governor to sign or veto/silent veto. With Fuzzy's bill, I don't think there are any objections to putting this to a vote. Voting will be open for a 48 hour period since it's simply procedural rules. Aye. Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: CatoMinor on January 16, 2011, 11:54:52 PM Aye
Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: RI on January 17, 2011, 12:23:16 AM Aye.
Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on January 17, 2011, 08:12:12 PM Technically the bill has already passed, but I think we should wait for Xahar's vote so the guidelines can't be disputed.
Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on January 18, 2011, 06:48:43 PM And the last vote.......
Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on January 18, 2011, 06:53:48 PM And the last vote....... He has three hours. Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on January 18, 2011, 09:45:29 PM The vote is closed on the Council Guidelines, a vote of 3 ayes, 0 nays, and 1 abstention. The floor is now open to proposing new legislation.
Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on January 18, 2011, 10:48:04 PM Excellent! :)
I would like to put up a bill for consideration: Quote Taxation of Marijuana Act Sections: 1.) On top of existing taxes in the Pacific Region and additional sin tax of 7% will be placed on the sale of cannabis. 2.) Half of the revenue gained through the Cannabis tax will be used to fund the training of doctors, nurses, and paramedics (including firefighters) through regional college grants and fire departments. The other half will go to hospital maintenance in districts where the median family income is under $30,000. This bill is designed to improve health care costs in low income areas, by taxing a product which can be a bit of a drag on our system (except in the case of Medical Marijuana). Due to the increasing demand of doctors and costs which rocket ever higher, we must insure that our hospitals (in the poorest of places) are up to speed on supplies and staff. This tax would fund exactly that. I give up the floor. Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on January 18, 2011, 11:57:01 PM I will give 24 hours for any other legislation to be proposed, then open up debate.
Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on January 20, 2011, 01:29:52 AM Debate is now open on the Taxation of Marijuana Act.
Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Хahar 🤔 on January 20, 2011, 01:35:47 AM I would support putting the same tax on tobacco and alcohol.
Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on January 20, 2011, 10:30:11 AM I would support putting the same tax on tobacco and alcohol. That's a good idea. Funny story, I actually took alcohol and tobacco taxes so for granted in the political system that I didn't check to see if we had any before I wrote the bill. It turns out we don't, so I'd be willing to support your amendment. ;D lol Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: RI on January 20, 2011, 12:27:15 PM I would support putting the same tax on tobacco and alcohol. I was going to suggest the same thing. For that matter, the Pacific has a number of other legal drugs that could be included as well. Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on January 20, 2011, 01:09:46 PM You guys had great suggestions. Here's a new bill, which takes place of "The Taxation of Marijuana Act"
Quote Taxation of Drugs and Alcoholic Beverages Act Sections: 1.) On top of existing taxes in the Pacific Region and additional sin tax of 7% will be placed on the sale of cannabis, alcoholic beverages, tobacco, and pain killing drugs . 2.) Half of the revenue gained from this tax will be used to fund the training of doctors, nurses, and paramedics through regional college grants and fire departments. The other half will go to hospital maintenance in districts where the median family income is under $30,000. Anything else? Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: CatoMinor on January 20, 2011, 01:28:15 PM Perhaps we would have the money to fund that medical stuff if the region did not fund friggan abortions where rape, incest, or life of mother being at stake are not involved. I can see where you guys are coming from as far as having the right to choose, I strongly disagree with how you look at it, but I can still see where you are coming from. What I cannot understand is how people derive some right out of nowhere to have the region 100% fund the abortions of spoiled brats trying to get out of taking responsibility for their actions.
If you could amend the bill to cover the costs by cutting the spending in places like that, that is just ridiculous, instead of raising taxes that would hurt poor people I would support it. Lets face it, the items being taxed are addictive, so most people will still be buying them, and poor people would not be an exception. Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: RI on January 20, 2011, 09:01:52 PM I would like to offer the following changes:
Quote Taxation of Drugs and Alcoholic Beverages Act Sections: 1.) On top of existing taxes in the Pacific Region, an additional sin tax of 7% will be placed on the sale of cannabis, LSD, alkyl nitrites, alcoholic beverages, tobacco, and drugs legalized by the Drug War Phase-Out Act (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Drug_War_Phase-Out_Act). 2.) Half of the revenue gained from this tax will be used to fund the training of doctors, nurses, and paramedics through regional college grants and fire departments. The other half will go to hospital maintenance in districts where the median family income is under $30,000. I'll introduce another bill to address JBrase's concerns. Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: RI on January 20, 2011, 09:15:01 PM A couple more bills I'd like to introduce when we're done with this one:
Quote Taxation of Prostitution Act Section 1. On top of all existing taxes in the Pacific Region, an additional 7% sin tax will be placed upon all transactions in which money is paid for an act of sex. Quote Amendment to the Public Funding of Abortion Act Section 1. Section 1 of the Public Funding of Abortion Act (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Public_Funding_in_Abortion_Act) is hereby repealed. Section 2. The Pacific Abortion Fund Office is hereby abolished. Quote Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act Section 1. Section 4 of the Public Funding of Abortion Act (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Public_Funding_in_Abortion_Act) is hereby repealed. Section 2. Any doctor who carries out an intact dilation and extraction (also known as partial-birth abortion) procedure shall be subject to up to five years in prison and an indefinite suspension of their medical license. I'm sorry if I did this out of order. Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on January 20, 2011, 10:01:09 PM I would like to offer the following changes: Quote Taxation of Drugs and Alcoholic Beverages Act Sections: 1.) On top of existing taxes in the Pacific Region, an additional sin tax of 7% will be placed on the sale of cannabis, LSD, alkyl nitrites, alcoholic beverages, tobacco, and drugs legalized by the Drug War Phase-Out Act (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Drug_War_Phase-Out_Act). 2.) Half of the revenue gained from this tax will be used to fund the training of doctors, nurses, and paramedics through regional college grants and fire departments. The other half will go to hospital maintenance in districts where the median family income is under $40,000. I amended the bill so districts with up to $40,000 (average income) will receive funding, just to make sure. Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: RI on January 21, 2011, 03:26:27 PM So how long until we vote on this? Tonight?
Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on January 21, 2011, 06:56:54 PM So how long until we vote on this? Tonight? I guess. Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on January 21, 2011, 07:08:08 PM I will call a vote on Fuzzy's bill tonight and continue debate on realistic's bills. I'll wait till Monday to call a vote on that. The vote for Fuzzy's bill will beging approximately at 7 PM tonight and end on Sunday at 7 PM (I won't be here on Saturday).
Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: CatoMinor on January 21, 2011, 08:38:11 PM nay
Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on January 21, 2011, 10:30:48 PM Aye
Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on January 21, 2011, 10:40:21 PM Btw, debate may continue on Realistic's proposed group of bills.
Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on January 21, 2011, 11:11:29 PM A couple more bills I'd like to introduce when we're done with this one: Quote Taxation of Prostitution Act Section 1. On top of all existing taxes in the Pacific Region, an additional 7% sin tax will be placed upon all transactions in which money is paid for an act of sex. Quote Amendment to the Public Funding of Abortion Act Section 1. Section 1 of the Public Funding of Abortion Act (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Public_Funding_in_Abortion_Act) is hereby repealed. Section 2. The Pacific Abortion Fund Office is hereby abolished. Quote Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act Section 1. Section 4 of the Public Funding of Abortion Act (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Public_Funding_in_Abortion_Act) is hereby repealed. Section 2. Any doctor who carries out an intact dilation and extraction (also known as partial-birth abortion) procedure shall be subject to up to five years in prison and an indefinite suspension of their medical license. I'm sorry if I did this out of order. The two following bills are of some concern to me. Yes, I personally disapprove of abortion, but there are many other factors to take into effect. Will the child grow up in a safe and comfortable environment? Are these people really ready to parent? Can these folks be able to support a child without massive government assistance? No is often the answer to these questions. Although I find any sort of abortion disgusting, the consequence(s) of banning them from our coverage could do even more damage in the long run. Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Хahar 🤔 on January 21, 2011, 11:51:10 PM Yea
Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: CatoMinor on January 22, 2011, 04:00:30 AM The two following bills are of some concern to me. Yes, I personally disapprove of abortion, but there are many other factors to take into effect. Will the child grow up in a safe and comfortable environment? Are these people really ready to parent? Can these folks be able to support a child without massive government assistance? No is often the answer to these questions. Although I find any sort of abortion disgusting, the consequence(s) of banning them from our coverage could do even more damage in the long run. Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on January 22, 2011, 11:25:50 AM The two following bills are of some concern to me. Yes, I personally disapprove of abortion, but there are many other factors to take into effect. Will the child grow up in a safe and comfortable environment? Are these people really ready to parent? Can these folks be able to support a child without massive government assistance? No is often the answer to these questions. Although I find any sort of abortion disgusting, the consequence(s) of banning them from our coverage could do even more damage in the long run. Being born can definitely be even worse punishment, if the mother is using drugs while pregnant, or if the parents are really abusive and don't want to put up with a child. By the way, if this bill passes it will also ban abortions during the first trimester (when the fetus does not even have a heartbeat) from public health care treatment options. That would definitely be a stretch. Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: RI on January 22, 2011, 03:18:43 PM Aye on fuzzy's bill.
Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: RI on January 22, 2011, 03:23:24 PM By the way, if this bill passes it will also ban abortions during the first trimester (when the fetus does not even have a heartbeat) from public health care treatment options. That would definitely be a stretch. Actually, I intentionally made my bills very specific. The only sections of the Public Funding of Abortion Act that would be repealed would be the one specifically for taxpayer subsidized abortions and the section that legalizes partial-birth abortion. I would have liked to have repealed the whole thing, but I want to be realistic about what can be done here. As for my bills, they do not ban abortions in the first trimester. I did not repeal the subsidies to reproductive health clinics for maintenance, and I did not ban abortion in the third trimester again. I think that both of those things should happen, but that is not what is currently on the table. Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on January 22, 2011, 10:22:59 PM By the way, if this bill passes it will also ban abortions during the first trimester (when the fetus does not even have a heartbeat) from public health care treatment options. That would definitely be a stretch. Actually, I intentionally made my bills very specific. The only sections of the Public Funding of Abortion Act that would be repealed would be the one specifically for taxpayer subsidized abortions and the section that legalizes partial-birth abortion. I would have liked to have repealed the whole thing, but I want to be realistic about what can be done here. As for my bills, they do not ban abortions in the first trimester. I did not repeal the subsidies to reproductive health clinics for maintenance, and I did not ban abortion in the third trimester again. I think that both of those things should happen, but that is not what is currently on the table. I'm not saying it bans first trimester abortions altogether, I'm saying that it bans first trimester abortions from public coverage (as well as any other kind) by repealing the 1st section of the Public Funding in Abortion Act. Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: RI on January 22, 2011, 10:42:40 PM By the way, if this bill passes it will also ban abortions during the first trimester (when the fetus does not even have a heartbeat) from public health care treatment options. That would definitely be a stretch. Actually, I intentionally made my bills very specific. The only sections of the Public Funding of Abortion Act that would be repealed would be the one specifically for taxpayer subsidized abortions and the section that legalizes partial-birth abortion. I would have liked to have repealed the whole thing, but I want to be realistic about what can be done here. As for my bills, they do not ban abortions in the first trimester. I did not repeal the subsidies to reproductive health clinics for maintenance, and I did not ban abortion in the third trimester again. I think that both of those things should happen, but that is not what is currently on the table. I'm not saying it bans first trimester abortions altogether, I'm saying that it bans first trimester abortions from public coverage (as well as any other kind) by repealing the 1st section of the Public Funding in Abortion Act. Gotcha. Yes, you are correct, at least for public coverage. It shouldn't affect private coverage though. Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on January 22, 2011, 10:43:26 PM Quote Taxation of Drugs and Alcoholic Beverages Act Sections: 1.) On top of existing taxes in the Pacific Region, an additional sin tax of 7% will be placed on the sale of cannabis, LSD, alkyl nitrites, alcoholic beverages, tobacco, and drugs legalized by the Drug War Phase-Out Act. 2.) Half of the revenue gained from this tax will be used to fund the training of doctors, nurses, and paramedics through regional college grants and fire departments. The other half will go to hospital maintenance in districts where the median family income is under $40,000. The council vote is 3 for, 1 against. :D ;D hughughug ;D :D Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: RI on January 22, 2011, 10:51:19 PM Fuzzy, what is your opinion on the partial-birth abortion ban I've proposed?
Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on January 23, 2011, 02:52:35 PM Fuzzy, what is your opinion on the partial-birth abortion ban I've proposed? I would be willing to compromise with you on that. I think that it should only be used if there are no other options and the mother's health is at risk. I've seen the procedure of partial birth abortion, and I admit it really goes too far. Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: RI on January 23, 2011, 03:34:18 PM How about this amendment? I admit, I'm not sure that the situation you describe realistically occurs, but just in case:
Quote Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act Section 1. Section 4 of the Public Funding of Abortion Act (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Public_Funding_in_Abortion_Act) is hereby repealed. Section 2. Any doctor or other individual who carries out an intact dilation and extraction (also known as partial-birth abortion) procedure shall be subject to up to five years in prison and an indefinite suspension of their medical license, except if the continuation of the pregnancy presents an immediate, direct, and grave threat to the life of the mother, and no other medical options are available. Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on January 23, 2011, 03:48:02 PM How about this amendment? I admit, I'm not sure that the situation you describe realistically occurs, but just in case: Quote Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act Section 1. Section 4 of the Public Funding of Abortion Act (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Public_Funding_in_Abortion_Act) is hereby repealed. Section 2. Any doctor or other individual who carries out an intact dilation and extraction (also known as partial-birth abortion) procedure shall be subject to up to five years in prison and an indefinite suspension of their medical license, except if the continuation of the pregnancy presents an immediate, direct, and grave threat to the life of the mother, and no other medical options are available. That looks good. I know partial birth abortions are very rare, but just in case. Thanks :) Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on January 24, 2011, 02:49:03 AM Sorry if this is a bit late, I was swamped with work when I got back home.
The Taxation of Drugs and Alcohol Beverages Act has passed with a 3-1 majority. Thanks to realistic for submitting the bill to the People's Assembly in my absence. Debate on Realistic's bills will continue to tomorrow night at 7 PM, when I will call a 72-hour vote. Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: CatoMinor on January 24, 2011, 11:36:40 AM I fully support the latter two bills that realistic introduced, but I am not sold on the 1st.
While I was governor/Emperor of the SE/IDS we brought in sweeping economic reforms that made the region a great place for new businesses. Lowered some taxes, abolished others, and gave credits to new businesses getting started. Now this bill would add an additional tax on top of old ones after just raising taxes on other various items in the previous bill. My point is that we will be chasing jobs out of our region and into places like the IDS. And also the economy isn't exactly great at the moment, higher taxes like this and the previous bill can be paid for by big businesses, but the smaller local businesses that may be struggling already will suffer. Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: RI on January 24, 2011, 12:38:42 PM I fully support the latter two bills that realistic introduced, but I am not sold on the 1st. While I was governor/Emperor of the SE/IDS we brought in sweeping economic reforms that made the region a great place for new businesses. Lowered some taxes, abolished others, and gave credits to new businesses getting started. Now this bill would add an additional tax on top of old ones after just raising taxes on other various items in the previous bill. My point is that we will be chasing jobs out of our region and into places like the IDS. And also the economy isn't exactly great at the moment, higher taxes like this and the previous bill can be paid for by big businesses, but the smaller local businesses that may be struggling already will suffer. I honestly wouldn't be disappointed if we chased prositution jobs out of the region. :P That said, if you have specific tax cut proposals, you are welcome to introduce them. Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: CatoMinor on January 24, 2011, 02:34:04 PM I fully support the latter two bills that realistic introduced, but I am not sold on the 1st. While I was governor/Emperor of the SE/IDS we brought in sweeping economic reforms that made the region a great place for new businesses. Lowered some taxes, abolished others, and gave credits to new businesses getting started. Now this bill would add an additional tax on top of old ones after just raising taxes on other various items in the previous bill. My point is that we will be chasing jobs out of our region and into places like the IDS. And also the economy isn't exactly great at the moment, higher taxes like this and the previous bill can be paid for by big businesses, but the smaller local businesses that may be struggling already will suffer. I honestly wouldn't be disappointed if we chased prositution jobs out of the region. :P That said, if you have specific tax cut proposals, you are welcome to introduce them. I'll see if I have time to write up something later. Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on January 24, 2011, 04:19:46 PM I fully support the latter two bills that realistic introduced, but I am not sold on the 1st. While I was governor/Emperor of the SE/IDS we brought in sweeping economic reforms that made the region a great place for new businesses. Lowered some taxes, abolished others, and gave credits to new businesses getting started. Now this bill would add an additional tax on top of old ones after just raising taxes on other various items in the previous bill. My point is that we will be chasing jobs out of our region and into places like the IDS. And also the economy isn't exactly great at the moment, higher taxes like this and the previous bill can be paid for by big businesses, but the smaller local businesses that may be struggling already will suffer. I honestly wouldn't be disappointed if we chased prositution jobs out of the region. :P That said, if you have specific tax cut proposals, you are welcome to introduce them. I agree, prostitution should be no vice for anyone who wants employment. Want to ban it? Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: RI on January 24, 2011, 06:24:50 PM I fully support the latter two bills that realistic introduced, but I am not sold on the 1st. While I was governor/Emperor of the SE/IDS we brought in sweeping economic reforms that made the region a great place for new businesses. Lowered some taxes, abolished others, and gave credits to new businesses getting started. Now this bill would add an additional tax on top of old ones after just raising taxes on other various items in the previous bill. My point is that we will be chasing jobs out of our region and into places like the IDS. And also the economy isn't exactly great at the moment, higher taxes like this and the previous bill can be paid for by big businesses, but the smaller local businesses that may be struggling already will suffer. I honestly wouldn't be disappointed if we chased prositution jobs out of the region. :P That said, if you have specific tax cut proposals, you are welcome to introduce them. I agree, prostitution should be no vice for anyone who wants employment. Want to ban it? I don't think banning it is quite the way I'd go about it because I don't believe that prostitutes should be criminalized for being (typically) victims of circumstances. I can present a comprehensive proposal based on what I think if you'd like. Plus, a ban probably wouldn't make it through the legislature. Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on January 25, 2011, 09:58:26 AM The vote is open on both of realistic's bills. If you wish you amend the bills, let them fail here and then reintroduce them with the amended info.
Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on January 25, 2011, 12:29:09 PM How does it do that? Oh, sorry, I thought it said Section 1 instead of 4. My bad. Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on January 25, 2011, 12:34:10 PM Quote Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act Section 1. Section 4 of the Public Funding of Abortion Act (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Public_Funding_in_Abortion_Act) is hereby repealed. Section 2. Any doctor or other individual who carries out an intact dilation and extraction (also known as partial-birth abortion) procedure shall be subject to up to five years in prison and an indefinite suspension of their medical license, except if the continuation of the pregnancy presents an immediate, direct, and grave threat to the life of the mother, and no other medical options are available. Aye Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on January 25, 2011, 12:34:48 PM Quote Amendment to the Public Funding of Abortion Act Section 1. Section 1 of the Public Funding of Abortion Act (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Public_Funding_in_Abortion_Act) is hereby repealed. Section 2. The Pacific Abortion Fund Office is hereby abolished. Nay Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on January 25, 2011, 12:36:03 PM Quote Taxation of Prostitution Act Section 1. On top of all existing taxes in the Pacific Region, an additional 7% sin tax will be placed upon all transactions in which money is paid for an act of sex. Aye Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: RI on January 25, 2011, 12:46:52 PM Taxation of Prostitution Act: Aye
Amendment to the Public Funding of Abortion Act: Aye Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act: Aye Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Хahar 🤔 on January 26, 2011, 04:38:33 AM Yea to all
Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: CatoMinor on January 27, 2011, 12:42:57 AM Taxation of Prostitution Act: Nay
Amendment to the Public Funding of Abortion Act: Aye Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act: Aye Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on January 27, 2011, 01:20:09 AM Partial-Birth Abortion Act has passed 4-0
The Taxation of Prostitiution Act has passed 3-1 The Amendment to the Public Funding of Abortion Act has passed 3-1 x ArchangelZero The floor is now open to new bills. Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on January 27, 2011, 10:03:03 AM On a side-note, I'm starting to find the tandem of the Council passing things and the Assembly voting them down very interesting.
Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 27, 2011, 12:26:33 PM On a side-note, I'm starting to find the tandem of the Council passing things and the Assembly voting them down very interesting. The problem is that there are only 3 people voting in the Assembly. If you councilors could vote (which would be logicals since you are citizens), the bills would pass. Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: CatoMinor on January 27, 2011, 01:02:04 PM I would like to introduce this.
Quote The Happy Fun Progressive Act 1. Because having children at the wrong time in ones life is clearly comparable to slavery, abortions shall be legal up until the 55th trimester. 2. These shall be completely funded by the Pacific Region 3. To pay for this all donations to churches shall be taxed at no more than 75% ;D this should have no problem passing the assembly (relax Ebowed, I'm just messing with you.) Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: RI on January 27, 2011, 03:03:47 PM Sigh. At least one of my bills got an aye vote in the Assembly...
Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on January 27, 2011, 06:53:06 PM On a side-note, I'm starting to find the tandem of the Council passing things and the Assembly voting them down very interesting. The problem is that there are only 3 people voting in the Assembly. If you councilors could vote (which would be logicals since you are citizens), the bills would pass. But that kind of kills the idea of one person, one vote, doesn't it? We need to push for more active citizen involvement in the Assembly. Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 28, 2011, 04:32:26 AM On a side-note, I'm starting to find the tandem of the Council passing things and the Assembly voting them down very interesting. The problem is that there are only 3 people voting in the Assembly. If you councilors could vote (which would be logicals since you are citizens), the bills would pass. But that kind of kills the idea of one person, one vote, doesn't it? We need to push for more active citizen involvement in the Assembly. Each person has one vote in the Assembly, so I don't see where is the problem. In every country, Representatives or other legislators have the right to vote for referendums that involve the whole people. Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on January 28, 2011, 07:56:03 PM On a side-note, I'm starting to find the tandem of the Council passing things and the Assembly voting them down very interesting. The problem is that there are only 3 people voting in the Assembly. If you councilors could vote (which would be logicals since you are citizens), the bills would pass. But that kind of kills the idea of one person, one vote, doesn't it? We need to push for more active citizen involvement in the Assembly. Each person has one vote in the Assembly, so I don't see where is the problem. In every country, Representatives or other legislators have the right to vote for referendums that involve the whole people. It is however, in technicality, a bicarmeal legislature. And the bill states that one man, one vote through the whole process, which is a very democratic way of doing it. Personally, I find this tandem to be good for the region as for the first time in months, we are actually having active debate regarding bills. :P Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 29, 2011, 09:40:35 AM On a side-note, I'm starting to find the tandem of the Council passing things and the Assembly voting them down very interesting. The problem is that there are only 3 people voting in the Assembly. If you councilors could vote (which would be logicals since you are citizens), the bills would pass. But that kind of kills the idea of one person, one vote, doesn't it? We need to push for more active citizen involvement in the Assembly. Each person has one vote in the Assembly, so I don't see where is the problem. In every country, Representatives or other legislators have the right to vote for referendums that involve the whole people. It is however, in technicality, a bicarmeal legislature. And the bill states that one man, one vote through the whole process, which is a very democratic way of doing it. Personally, I find this tandem to be good for the region as for the first time in months, we are actually having active debate regarding bills. :P Still, considering the level of inactivity in our region, this leaves two or three people the possibility to block any legislative proposal. There were more votes cast in the restricted, elected house than in the universal, illimited one. Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on January 29, 2011, 03:21:15 PM On a side-note, I'm starting to find the tandem of the Council passing things and the Assembly voting them down very interesting. The problem is that there are only 3 people voting in the Assembly. If you councilors could vote (which would be logicals since you are citizens), the bills would pass. But that kind of kills the idea of one person, one vote, doesn't it? We need to push for more active citizen involvement in the Assembly. Each person has one vote in the Assembly, so I don't see where is the problem. In every country, Representatives or other legislators have the right to vote for referendums that involve the whole people. It is however, in technicality, a bicarmeal legislature. And the bill states that one man, one vote through the whole process, which is a very democratic way of doing it. Personally, I find this tandem to be good for the region as for the first time in months, we are actually having active debate regarding bills. :P Still, considering the level of inactivity in our region, this leaves two or three people the possibility to block any legislative proposal. There were more votes cast in the restricted, elected house than in the universal, illimited one. Of course, won't that require cooperation between both chambers? I'll discuss the idea with Oakvale, and we'll see what will happen. Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on January 30, 2011, 01:14:15 AM Debate is now open on the Happy Fun Progressive Act. Voting will commence on Tuesday, 10 PM.
Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: CatoMinor on January 30, 2011, 11:27:43 AM It is a crime that mothers should be forced into slavery like this. The only responsible option is to allow a safe abortion of the..well, lets say parasite because they cannot survive off on their own yet, up until the 55th trimester.
We cannot in good conscience allow these parasites to keep these women from going to school and living out all of their lives dreams. There even a few cases when these parasites go crazy and threaten the life of the mother. Only a heartless person would vote against The Happy Fun Progressive Act. Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: RI on January 30, 2011, 03:08:50 PM btw, can the Lt. Gov vote in the Assembly?
Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on January 30, 2011, 03:49:53 PM btw, can the Lt. Gov vote in the Assembly? Actually, I have no idea. I didn't really think about that....though I do know that I can only vote here in the case of a tie breaker. Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on January 30, 2011, 10:10:54 PM Quote Taxation of Casinos Act Sections: 1.) All casino's will pay a 5% regional tax on all gambling transactions within them (in addition to other possible existing taxes). You know, for the debt? Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: RI on January 31, 2011, 01:18:35 AM I just can't see any sin taxes getting through the Assembly.
Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: RI on January 31, 2011, 01:38:20 AM It is a crime that mothers should be forced into slavery like this. The only responsible option is to allow a safe abortion of the..well, lets say parasite because they cannot survive off on their own yet, up until the 55th trimester. We cannot in good conscience allow these parasites to keep these women from going to school and living out all of their lives dreams. There even a few cases when these parasites go crazy and threaten the life of the mother. Only a heartless person would vote against The Happy Fun Progressive Act. Can we just legalize murder and get it over with? :P Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: CatoMinor on January 31, 2011, 01:43:06 AM It is a crime that mothers should be forced into slavery like this. The only responsible option is to allow a safe abortion of the..well, lets say parasite because they cannot survive off on their own yet, up until the 55th trimester. We cannot in good conscience allow these parasites to keep these women from going to school and living out all of their lives dreams. There even a few cases when these parasites go crazy and threaten the life of the mother. Only a heartless person would vote against The Happy Fun Progressive Act. Can we just legalize murder and get it over with? :P Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on January 31, 2011, 01:45:11 AM I just can't see any sin taxes getting through the Assembly. Income/estate taxes on the wealthy perhaps? Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: RI on January 31, 2011, 01:50:56 AM It is a crime that mothers should be forced into slavery like this. The only responsible option is to allow a safe abortion of the..well, lets say parasite because they cannot survive off on their own yet, up until the 55th trimester. We cannot in good conscience allow these parasites to keep these women from going to school and living out all of their lives dreams. There even a few cases when these parasites go crazy and threaten the life of the mother. Only a heartless person would vote against The Happy Fun Progressive Act. Can we just legalize murder and get it over with? :P What about rich people? Aren't they parasites who leech off of the poor? Heck, poor people are parasites too, leeching off society and the government. They also probably can't defend themselves very well. I vote we kill them off so to speed up gentrification. I like my inner cities, but not my inner cities. Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: RI on January 31, 2011, 01:52:57 AM I just can't see any sin taxes getting through the Assembly. Income/estate taxes on the wealthy perhaps? I'd need to read up on the relevent current statute before I made any determination on that. Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: CatoMinor on January 31, 2011, 01:56:05 AM I just can't see any sin taxes getting through the Assembly. Income/estate taxes on the wealthy perhaps? Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on January 31, 2011, 01:58:37 AM Quote Give Fuzzy some Alcohol Act Sections: 1.) $1,200 worth of Irish liquor will be delivered to Fuzzybigfoot in the regional capital building so he can drown out the the thought of our countries' inevitable doom (at the hands of debt, unemployment, and selfish corporations). 2.) This will be paid for by, oh who cares. Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: RI on January 31, 2011, 01:59:53 AM Quote Give Fuzzy some Alcohol Act Sections: 1.) $1,200 worth of Irish liquor will be delivered to Fuzzybigfoot in the regional capital building so he can drown out the the thought of our countries' inevitable doom (at the hands of debt, unemployment, and selfish corporations). 2.) This will be paid for by, oh who cares. I'll be supporting this (as long as you take my share). :) Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: CatoMinor on January 31, 2011, 02:02:07 AM What about rich people? Aren't they parasites who leech off of the poor? How so? unless we are talking about the Ancien Regime in France or something like that. And how dare you, those are people you are talking about. I am only talking about the parasites ages -9 months to around 11 or so yrs that keep these poor helpless women in slavery against their will. Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: RI on January 31, 2011, 02:03:21 AM What about rich people? Aren't they parasites who leech off of the poor? How so? unless we are talking about the Ancien Regime in France or something like that. They extract their suplus value. Duh. Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on January 31, 2011, 02:05:41 AM I just can't see any sin taxes getting through the Assembly. Income/estate taxes on the wealthy perhaps? Maybe, but it's either that or cutting goodies like transportation and local health care subsidies. And average CEO profits have risen from 70 times the minimum wage to 800 in the last 30 years, so maybe.... Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: RI on January 31, 2011, 02:06:29 AM I just intentionally conflated progressives with Marxian theory. I feel so dirty right now.
Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: RI on January 31, 2011, 02:08:15 AM I just can't see any sin taxes getting through the Assembly. Income/estate taxes on the wealthy perhaps? Maybe, but it's either that or cutting goodies like transportation and local health care subsidies. And average CEO profits have risen from 70 times the minimum wage to 800 in the last 30 years, so maybe.... Or we could just run a deficit. I think that's allowed. Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: CatoMinor on January 31, 2011, 02:23:38 AM I'm sorry, but as long as the region wastes its money willingly on things like elective friggan abortions, I refuse to vote to raise taxes one cent. We cannot complain about being short on cash to cover things when we a shoveling it away on stupid things.
Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on January 31, 2011, 02:25:52 AM To clarify, do you seriously want debate opened on those bills Fuzzy? :P
Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on January 31, 2011, 11:19:18 AM To clarify, do you seriously want debate opened on those bills Fuzzy? :P Only the first one. lol Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on January 31, 2011, 12:04:36 PM I just can't see any sin taxes getting through the Assembly. Income/estate taxes on the wealthy perhaps? Maybe, but it's either that or cutting goodies like transportation and local health care subsidies. And average CEO profits have risen from 70 times the minimum wage to 800 in the last 30 years, so maybe.... Or we could just run a deficit. I think that's allowed. All right, I guess. Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: CatoMinor on January 31, 2011, 04:21:59 PM I just can't see any sin taxes getting through the Assembly. Income/estate taxes on the wealthy perhaps? Maybe, but it's either that or cutting goodies like transportation and local health care subsidies. And average CEO profits have risen from 70 times the minimum wage to 800 in the last 30 years, so maybe.... Or we could just run a deficit. I think that's allowed. All right, I guess. Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on January 31, 2011, 05:12:51 PM I just can't see any sin taxes getting through the Assembly. Income/estate taxes on the wealthy perhaps? Maybe, but it's either that or cutting goodies like transportation and local health care subsidies. And average CEO profits have risen from 70 times the minimum wage to 800 in the last 30 years, so maybe.... Or we could just run a deficit. I think that's allowed. All right, I guess. Like what? Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: CatoMinor on January 31, 2011, 05:20:14 PM I'm sorry, but as long as the region wastes its money willingly on things like elective friggan abortions, I refuse to vote to raise taxes one cent. We cannot complain about being short on cash to cover things when we a shoveling it away on stupid things. Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: RI on January 31, 2011, 06:33:20 PM I'm sorry, but as long as the region wastes its money willingly on things like elective friggan abortions, I refuse to vote to raise taxes one cent. We cannot complain about being short on cash to cover things when we a shoveling it away on stupid things. That's nice Jbrase, and I agree, but it just isn't happening unless we can come up with at least four yes votes in the Assembly. Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on February 02, 2011, 07:00:43 PM I'm sorry, but as long as the region wastes its money willingly on things like elective friggan abortions, I refuse to vote to raise taxes one cent. We cannot complain about being short on cash to cover things when we a shoveling it away on stupid things. Elective abortions cover many 1st trimester abortions as well, when the fetus doesn't even have a heartbeat. And abortion shouldn't make up a very large fraction of the budget anyways. It doesn't really make sense on fiscal or moral grounds to cut all publicly funded abortions. Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: CatoMinor on February 03, 2011, 01:14:36 AM I'm sorry, but as long as the region wastes its money willingly on things like elective friggan abortions, I refuse to vote to raise taxes one cent. We cannot complain about being short on cash to cover things when we a shoveling it away on stupid things. Elective abortions cover many 1st trimester abortions as well, when the fetus doesn't even have a heartbeat. And abortion shouldn't make up a very large fraction of the budget anyways. It doesn't really make sense on fiscal or moral grounds to cut all publicly funded abortions. As much as I want to stop it all, I know certain people in the region would have a hissy fit if we stopped subsidizing murder. But does really matter how much? Wasteful spending is still wasteful spending. But like I said, we could probably find better examples and more places to cut if we look through the wiki. Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Хahar 🤔 on February 04, 2011, 10:43:39 PM I think it's fairly clear that the Council is well to the right of the region in general, although I'm not sure why that's the case.
Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: bgwah on February 04, 2011, 10:59:10 PM I think it's fairly clear that the Council is well to the right of the region in general, although I'm not sure why that's the case. A lot of us (myself, Ebowed, Marokai) are currently being taken up by other offices. :P Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: RI on February 04, 2011, 11:50:31 PM I think it's fairly clear that the Council is well to the right of the region in general, although I'm not sure why that's the case. It's true, but there's not a whole lot further to the left that the region could go without completely leaving the realm of things that are normally discussed in North American politics. I'm not opposed to taking up such proposals, but it seems that the region has gone so far to the left that most things that we could pass would either be more conservative or libertarian or communitarian than the region is now. I'm not necessarily saying this in a negative way, for the record. From my own perspective, I like having a lot (those certainly not all, obviously) of the leftist economic policies that we have. Therefore, it would only be natural for me to address the areas where I believe the region is most out of line, in my opinion. Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on February 04, 2011, 11:55:10 PM I think it's fairly clear that the Council is well to the right of the region in general, although I'm not sure why that's the case. Which only means that both houses have to learn how to compromise (*shudder at the thought* :P) Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Oakvale on February 05, 2011, 02:28:25 PM I think it's fairly clear that the Council is well to the right of the region in general, although I'm not sure why that's the case. Well there were only four candidates, and two of them are arguably to the right of the region in general, so... :P Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on February 06, 2011, 12:31:46 AM I know this bill may be controversial to some of our members, but I have to try:
Quote Gay/Lesbian Marriage Legalization Act 1.) Marriage between a gay or lesbian couple is now legalized in the Pacific Region. lol Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: CatoMinor on February 06, 2011, 12:53:39 AM I support his, but I was un-aware they couldn't already ???
Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on February 06, 2011, 12:59:16 AM I support his, but I was un-aware they couldn't already ??? I couldn't find anything in our statute concerning this, so I just assumed it wasn't. Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on February 06, 2011, 01:08:16 AM There was an act to ban homophobia in the public and private sectors, but they never mentioned marriage specifically.
https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Anti-Discrimination_Act Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on February 06, 2011, 01:27:34 AM I'll give 24 hours for any other bills to be proposed before I start debate. If this doesn't get through the Assembly I will eat my hat.
Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: CatoMinor on February 06, 2011, 02:49:26 AM I introduce this
Quote Re-Naming Act 1. For the purposes of saving money, but mainly not being douche bags to the people who actually live in the area's affected, the names of counties and cities located withing The Pacific Region can only be changed by the popular vote of the citizens who reside in them. 2. Becuase it is not the role of Government to purposely harass a group of people, The Sodom and Gomorrah Act is herby repealed. Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Ebowed on February 06, 2011, 07:25:21 AM The Pacific does not have a same-sex marriage law because marriage is a federal issue, and the federal government recognizes only civil unions, regardless of gender.
Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on February 06, 2011, 06:53:09 PM CRAAAAAP.
Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: bgwah on February 06, 2011, 06:54:15 PM You been watching the newest season of Big Love, Jbrase? :P
Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: CatoMinor on February 07, 2011, 01:23:02 AM You been watching the newest season of Big Love, Jbrase? :P Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on February 07, 2011, 02:30:47 PM Come to think of things, we need to figure out who's up for re-election this month. We know Fuzzy got in unscathed, and we know Xahar is up. So are they any volunteers between realistic and Jbrase? :P
Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: RI on February 07, 2011, 03:33:38 PM Will we actually have a situation where someone could lose this time? ;)
Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Oakvale on February 07, 2011, 03:55:04 PM I'd actually run if I wasn't partaking in the other campaign. ;D
Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on February 08, 2011, 02:00:12 AM Will we actually have a situation where someone could lose this time? ;) I might end up running just for the sake of it. :P Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: CatoMinor on February 08, 2011, 05:45:42 PM Can we begin debate on my bill? (I am assuming fuzzy's is withdrawn due to federal law)
Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: RI on February 08, 2011, 07:45:36 PM Can we begin debate on my bill? (I am assuming fuzzy's is withdrawn do to federal law) I'll support your bill, fyi. Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on February 08, 2011, 07:49:22 PM At Jbrase's request, debate will now begin on the Re-Naming Act, set to end on Friday, 7 PM.
Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on February 08, 2011, 08:23:17 PM Can we begin debate on my bill? (I am assuming fuzzy's is withdrawn do to federal law) I'll support your bill, fyi. Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: CatoMinor on February 09, 2011, 02:39:40 PM Ok, It appears to have at least 3 aye votes, I motion to move this to a vote and perhaps with some divine intervention the Assemblée de Extrémistes will pass this bill.
Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: RI on February 10, 2011, 07:08:46 PM I'm going to introduce this bill. Feel free to offer amendments to it.
Quote The Ultimate Supply-Side Economics Act Section 1. Beginning January 1, 2014, the usage of gasoline, diesel, natural gas, and all other petroleum-derived or -containing fuel shall hereby be banned for usage in all automobiles in the Pacific Region. a) Automobiles that possess historic importance, are necessary for interregional commerce, or are otherwise demonstrably vital and irreplaceable may be driven upon grant of permit from the Pacific Department of Licensing. b) Any automobile found to be driven while consuming any of the aforementioned fuels without a permit will be impounded and destroyed after January 1, 2014. Section 2. The Pacific Region will produce vouchers beginning January 1, 2012 and concluding June 1, 2014 worth half of the cost of an automobile that uses hydrogen, electricity, or another sustainable fuel source or the full cost of replacing the engine in their existing automobile with one that uses the aforementioned clean sources, whichever is cheaper, to be distributed to all holders of driver’s licenses in the Pacific Region with an annual household income below $200,000. These vouchers are to be paid by citizens to car manufacturers, who can redeem them for cash value from the Pacific Department of Energy. a) Each license holder may receive a maximum of one voucher. b) Receipts from voucher transactions for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles shall be redeemable for an additional voucher worth one-hundred dollars off a solar-powered home hydrolysis station. Section 3. To aid this transition and supplement revenue for this expenditure, tax rates on gasoline and diesel will be raised one dollar per gallon per month beginning June 1, 2012 and concluding January 1, 2014. a) This tax shall not apply to gasoline or diesel used in aircraft or water-based vehicles. Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: RI on February 10, 2011, 07:59:15 PM And another bill:
Quote Another Fracking Ban Section 1. Effective immediately upon the passage of this act, the method of resource extraction known as hydraulic fracturing ('fracking') shall hereby be banned in the Pacific Region. Section 2. Persons found to be in violation of this act will be sentenced to a fine not to exceed $100 million as well as a minimum of five years imprisonment. Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on February 10, 2011, 08:16:39 PM The Re-Naming Act will now be open for a vote. Debate on realistic's bill will begin tomorrow, at 6 PM PST after the vote.
Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: RI on February 10, 2011, 08:36:24 PM Re-Naming Act: Aye
Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on February 10, 2011, 09:06:23 PM Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: CatoMinor on February 11, 2011, 12:58:11 AM Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: CatoMinor on February 11, 2011, 03:48:25 PM On a side note, I would ask all my colleagues to re-consider their aye's on the current amendment being voted on by the region. It may look nice and pretty but it nevertheless weakens the Regions. I know 2/3 is alot but regardless, we can't allow amendments to go around regions like this. Sure the current set up is kinda strict, but think about it, this forces those who write the amendments to work with all sides to make it a more agreeable amendment so that it can pass in at least 4 regions.
That said I ask that you all reconsider your votes. Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: bgwah on February 11, 2011, 07:00:11 PM Can we begin debate on my bill? (I am assuming fuzzy's is withdrawn do to federal law) I'll support your bill, fyi. Didn't you support the renaming just a few months ago? :P Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: RI on February 11, 2011, 07:48:24 PM Can we begin debate on my bill? (I am assuming fuzzy's is withdrawn do to federal law) I'll support your bill, fyi. Didn't you support the renaming just a few months ago? :P Maybe... :P (I really don't care about renaming. It's all sort of fun and games to do so, but if you really think about it, it wouldn't be a very nice thing to do in real life to a community. Meh.) Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on February 12, 2011, 12:40:30 AM I'm going to introduce this bill. Feel free to offer amendments to it. Quote The Ultimate Supply-Side Economics Act Section 1. Beginning January 1, 2014, the usage of gasoline, diesel, natural gas, and all other petroleum-derived or -containing fuel shall hereby be banned for usage in all automobiles in the Pacific Region. a) Automobiles that possess historic importance, are necessary for interregional commerce, or are otherwise demonstrably vital and irreplaceable may be driven upon grant of permit from the Pacific Department of Licensing. b) Any automobile found to be driven while consuming any of the aforementioned fuels without a permit will be impounded and destroyed after January 1, 2014. Section 2. The Pacific Region will produce vouchers beginning January 1, 2012 and concluding June 1, 2014 worth half of the cost of an automobile that uses hydrogen, electricity, or another sustainable fuel source or the full cost of replacing the engine in their existing automobile with one that uses the aforementioned clean sources, whichever is cheaper, to be distributed to all holders of driver’s licenses in the Pacific Region with an annual household income below $200,000. These vouchers are to be paid by citizens to car manufacturers, who can redeem them for cash value from the Pacific Department of Energy. a) Each license holder may receive a maximum of one voucher. b) Receipts from voucher transactions for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles shall be redeemable for an additional voucher worth one-hundred dollars off a solar-powered home hydrolysis station. Section 3. To aid this transition and supplement revenue for this expenditure, tax rates on gasoline and diesel will be raised one dollar per gallon per month beginning June 1, 2012 and concluding January 1, 2014. a) This tax shall not apply to gasoline or diesel used in aircraft or water-based vehicles. Do we have a cost projection for that? Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: RI on February 12, 2011, 12:42:20 AM Do we have a cost projection for that? Oh, it'll certainly be expensive, but the idea is that if it works, it'll return many times on the investment in the form of economic growth. I'm sure it would be fascinating to try to calculate. We might want to amend it to cap the value of the vouchers, though, otherwise people could use them to buy the most expensive car they can...hmm. Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on February 12, 2011, 12:49:11 AM Do we have a cost projection for that? Oh, it'll certainly be expensive, but the idea is that if it works, it'll return many times on the investment in the form of economic growth. True, and our environment is taking a beating. :( Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: CatoMinor on February 13, 2011, 12:35:54 PM I love the idea of cleaner but this just goes too far. Forcing people to buy new energy efficient cars and if they refuse they will lose their car and have it destroyed? I know the heart is in the right place but this bill is way too authoritarian.
Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on February 13, 2011, 01:01:20 PM I love the idea of cleaner but this just goes too far. Forcing people to buy new energy efficient cars and if they refuse they will lose their car and have it destroyed? I know the heart is in the right place but this bill is way too authoritarian. Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: RI on February 13, 2011, 03:33:16 PM Look, I know it sounds extreme, but I'm frankly a bit sick and tired of waiting around for change to come on this issue. I know you're not going to like it Jbrase; I knew that when I wrote it.
I'm open to amendments if there's something that can be improved, but the 'mandate', you might say, is there for a reason. The way that I see it, by effectively replacing almost all of the gasoline-powered vehicles on the road, and by paying for a good portion of the transition, we would be creating a massive economic stimulus that would go to car companies, a massive stimulus that would go to each and every car owner because, after the initial payment, they would never have to buy gasoline again. If they have a hydrogen car, they would almost essentially get a home fueling station, meaning that the price of their fuel would be no more than the price of their monthly water bill. This will also create increase aggregate supply because it will remove high fuel costs for companies who need to ship things within the region. We are doing all of these things in the least costly manner to individuals that we can, and in the most economically correct way that you can (for government intervention). Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: CatoMinor on February 14, 2011, 01:55:15 AM Just prepare for a massive hit in tourism. the people in the Midwest and IDS will not purchess to visit our region.
Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: RI on February 14, 2011, 02:10:10 AM We could exempt cars from other regions for limited durations. I don't know how much that would help or not.
Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on February 14, 2011, 02:20:55 AM The Re-Naming Act has passed with a vote of 3-0-1.
x ArchangelZero/The Doctor Debate on the Anti-Fracking Bill and the The Ultimate Supply-Sides Economic Act is now open. Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: CatoMinor on February 14, 2011, 09:37:11 AM We could exempt cars from other regions for limited durations. I don't know how much that would help or not. I'll make a version as an a amendment later today, lets see if we can meet somewhere in the middle with it. Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: RI on February 14, 2011, 12:36:08 PM We could exempt cars from other regions for limited durations. I don't know how much that would help or not. Because we can't control what other regions do; we can only control (to an extent) what ours does. We're not the Senate. I've been thinking about the tourism aspect, and a problem with exempting cars from other regions is that, with this transition, businesses should (if they want to make money) transition some of their infrastructure over (such as gas stations to charging stations or whatnot), so there won't be many places for out-of-region cars to fill up at. Unless 'fuel stations' as a concept goes out of business altogether... I'm really not sure what would happen in this aspect of things. Then again, vehicles necessary for interregional commerce are exempt, so I don't know if this falls under that or not. Damn expansive commerce clauses that could mean anything. :P Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: RI on February 16, 2011, 12:21:00 AM I made a couple changes:
Quote The Ultimate Supply-Side Economics Act Section 1. Beginning January 1, 2014, the usage of gasoline, diesel, natural gas, and all other petroleum-derived or -containing fuel shall hereby be banned for usage in all automobiles in the Pacific Region. a) Automobiles that possess historic importance, are necessary for interregional commerce, or are otherwise demonstrably vital and irreplaceable may be driven upon grant of permit from the Pacific Department of Licensing. i) An automobile that is necessary for interregional commerce must travel between regions for business purposes no fewer than five times a month, or possess no fewer than six normally operational wheels. ii) Each license shall cost no more than $50, adjustable to inflation no sooner than January 1, 2015. b) Any automobile found to be driven while consuming any of the aforementioned fuels without a permit after January 1, 2014 will be impounded and destroyed. i) Automobiles registered to other regions are exempt Section 1, provided that the owner is not a resident of the Pacific Region. Section 2. The Pacific Region will produce vouchers beginning January 1, 2012 and concluding June 1, 2014 worth half of the cost of an automobile that uses hydrogen, electricity, or another sustainable fuel source or the full cost of replacing the engine in their existing automobile with one that uses the aforementioned clean sources, whichever is cheaper, to be distributed to all holders of driver’s licenses in the Pacific Region with an annual household income below $200,000. These vouchers are to be paid by citizens to car manufacturers, who can redeem them for cash value from the Pacific Department of Energy. a) Each license holder may receive a maximum of one voucher. b) Receipts from voucher transactions for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles shall be redeemable for an additional voucher worth one-hundred dollars off a solar-powered home hydrolysis station. Section 3. To aid this transition and supplement revenue for this expenditure, tax rates on gasoline and diesel will be raised one dollar per gallon per month beginning June 1, 2012 and concluding January 1, 2014. a) This tax shall not apply to gasoline or diesel used in aircraft or water-based vehicles. The five times per month number is changeable. I pretty much just picked it at random. Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: RI on February 16, 2011, 12:44:11 PM I think my bills have been on the floor for more than three days now, fyi.
Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: CatoMinor on February 16, 2011, 10:22:52 PM I offer as an amendment to Realistic's bill:
Quote The Ultimate Supply-Side Economics Act 1. The gasoline and Diesel tax rates shall increase 30 cents per gallon effective March 1st 2011. 2. All revenue from this increase shall go towards Sections 3 and 4 of this bill. 3. The 1st company that can create and demonstrate a vehicle that meats the all current safety standards, gets the equivalent of 100 miles or better to the gallon of gasoline, can be ready to be mass produced by 2014, and sold at a price of $5,000 or less shall receive a 2 year tax exempt status. 4. Any additional funds left over from this bill shall go to aiding low income families purchase the new vehicle on a case by case basis. Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: CatoMinor on February 17, 2011, 01:50:14 PM Quote The Sylvester-Tom Act 1. Effective immediately, all de-clawing of felines is illegal withing the Pacific region. 2. Any person found guilty of paying to have their feline de-clawed shall face a fine of $5000 for the 1st offense and up to 1 month in jail for repeated offenses. 3. Any veterinarian found guilty of de-clawing felines shall face a fine of up to $7000 and shall have their license suspended for up to 3 months and permanently revoked for repeated offenses. 4. All revenue from fines shall go to Animal Shelters located in The Pacific Region. Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on February 17, 2011, 02:23:55 PM Would you all just like to push a vote on realistics' bills now or debate Jbrase's amendment?
If I have to put it to a vote now, I'll be pushing the original text. Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: RI on February 17, 2011, 03:10:30 PM Would you all just like to push a vote on realistics' bills now or debate Jbrase's amendment? If I have to put it to a vote now, I'll be pushing the original text. Would the vote be on my original bill or the revised version I posted? Either way, we should probably hold a vote on the fracking bill, since it hasn't had any debate. Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on February 17, 2011, 07:59:02 PM The vote is now open on realistic's revised version of the Fracking bill.
Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: RI on February 17, 2011, 08:02:09 PM The vote is now open on realistic's revised version of the Fracking bill. As far as I know, there should only be one version of the Fracking bill. :P Assuming we mean this: Quote Another Fracking Ban Section 1. Effective immediately upon the passage of this act, the method of resource extraction known as hydraulic fracturing ('fracking') shall hereby be banned in the Pacific Region. Section 2. Persons found to be in violation of this act will be sentenced to a fine not to exceed $100 million as well as a minimum of five years imprisonment. Another Fracking Ban: Aye Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Хahar 🤔 on February 17, 2011, 10:38:08 PM Yea
Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: CatoMinor on February 17, 2011, 10:40:54 PM Aye
Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on February 18, 2011, 01:17:45 AM Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: RI on February 18, 2011, 12:15:00 PM As for the USSEA, I'd like to get fuzzy and Xahar's opinions on the matter before I make any decisions.
Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on February 18, 2011, 11:46:13 PM The motion passes 4-0.
x ArchangelZero/The Doctor Debate is now open on the Sylvester-Tom Bill. The chair has recognized the motion to extend debate on USSEA. Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: CatoMinor on February 21, 2011, 02:30:07 PM Any thoughts on my amendment to the USSEA?
And you'd have to be heartless vote vote against my bill :P and if there is any confusion about the name of the bill: () () Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: RI on February 21, 2011, 04:17:34 PM Any thoughts on my amendment to the USSEA? I've always been a big believer in getting things done, as in actually solving problems. It just makes sense to me to try to, whenever feasible, completely fix a problem, especially for big ones, rather than take incremental steps without any guarantee of not just kicking the ball down the road. That's why I wrote the bill I did, because most bills about alternative energy are what I see as kicking the ball down the road and hoping that maybe someday we'll get there. Your amendment is more of an incremental one than the complete overhaul that I would like. I'm pretty confident that I could get the bill passed as is, so I don't see a ton of incentive to tear it apart. That said, I am willing to incorporate some of the ideas in your amendment into your bill, such as the incentives to manufacturers for developing these cars (though I think they should have a good incentive already), and if there is anything specific that you think should be changed, I'm open to it, though I really believe that to work the 'mandate' must be in place. My bill is authoritarian, I suppose, but I don't think that is an inherently bad thing, especially when we're supplying most of the means to do it at as little out-of-pocket cost as possible to individuals. That said, if Xahar and/or Fuzzy have a big issue with my bill, I suppose I might have to do something about it, but I haven't heard anything as of yet. Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: CatoMinor on February 21, 2011, 07:10:54 PM I also much prefer the rational comprehensive model of making policy over the incremental model, however something such as this where gasoline/diesel powered vehicles have become such an important part of our lives that your complete overhaul of how we use gas powered cars would have very negative side effects. Like moving fish from one tank to another, if you just simply put a fish in something new right away without time to adjust your gonna hurt them.
Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: RI on February 21, 2011, 07:25:33 PM Like moving fish from one tank to another, if you just simply put a fish in something new right away without time to adjust your gonna hurt them. I did try to space out when the various sections come into effect. People would have two years between the time when the vouchers begin to be distributed and when the ban goes into effect. Timeline: 1. January 1, 2012: Beginning of voucher distribution 2. June 1, 2012: Beginning of gas price increases 3. January 1, 2014: Ban on gasoline vehicles in effect and end of gas price increases 4. June 1, 2014: End of voucher distribution Is this timeline inadequate? I can move it all out an additional year if you think development is a serious concern. Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: RI on February 22, 2011, 01:49:16 PM An amended version of the USSEA:
Quote The Ultimate Supply-Side Economics Act Section 1. Beginning January 1, 2015, the usage of gasoline, diesel, natural gas, and all other petroleum-derived or -containing fuel shall hereby be banned for usage in all automobiles in the Pacific Region. a) Automobiles that possess historic importance, are necessary for interregional commerce, or are otherwise demonstrably vital and irreplaceable may be driven upon grant of permit from the Pacific Department of Licensing. i) An automobile that is necessary for interregional commerce must travel between regions for business purposes no fewer than five times a month, or possess no fewer than six normally operational wheels. ii) Each license shall cost no more than $50, adjustable to inflation no sooner than January 1, 2016. b) Any automobile found to be driven while consuming any of the aforementioned fuels without a permit after January 1, 2015 will be impounded and destroyed. i) Automobiles registered to other regions are exempt Section 1, provided that the owner is not a resident of the Pacific Region. Section 2. The Pacific Region will produce vouchers beginning January 1, 2013 and concluding June 1, 2015 worth half of the cost of an automobile that uses hydrogen, electricity, or another sustainable fuel source or the full cost of replacing the engine in their existing automobile with one that uses the aforementioned clean sources, whichever is cheaper, to be distributed to all holders of driver’s licenses in the Pacific Region with an annual household income below $200,000. These vouchers are to be paid by citizens to car manufacturers, who can redeem them for cash value from the Pacific Department of Energy. a) Each license holder may receive a maximum of one voucher. b) Receipts from voucher transactions for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles shall be redeemable for an additional voucher worth one-hundred dollars off a conventional- or solar-powered home hydrolysis station. c) No additional down payment shall be required for any automobile sold under this program that requires financing or any payment in installments. Section 3. Any company or firm based in the Pacific Region that can produce a production line- and sale-ready automobile that meets all current safety standards that uses hydrogen, electricity, or another sustainable fuel source without any usage of gasoline, diesel, natural gas, or any other petroleum-derived or -containing fuel source that achieves no less than an equivalent of 100 miles per gallon of gasoline and has a normal operating range from full fuel of no less than 300 miles that can be sold at a cost efficient price no greater than $10,000 before January 1, 2013 shall receive a two-year tax exempt status. Additional years may be gained by the below formulae: a) For every additional twenty miles per gallon equivalency that the automobile(s) rate(s) above 100 miles per gallon, the company or firm will receive an additional year of tax-exempt status, up to five years. b) For every additional $1,000 in price reduction below $10,000 per automobile, the company or firm will receive an additional year of tax exempt status. c) For every additional 100 miles in normal operating range from full fuel that the automobile(s) rate(s), the company or firm will receive an additional year of tax exempt status. Section 4. To aid this transition and supplement revenue for this expenditure, tax rates on gasoline and diesel will be raised one dollar per gallon per month beginning June 1, 2013 and concluding January 1, 2015. a) This tax shall not apply to gasoline or diesel used in aircraft or water-based vehicles. What do you think of my changes Jbrase? Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: RI on February 22, 2011, 07:29:35 PM Any comments on the revised bill? If not, I'd like to end debate as soon as possible.
Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: CatoMinor on February 23, 2011, 02:41:57 AM I'm not in love with the bill, but I'll vote for it.
Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: RI on February 23, 2011, 12:16:34 PM I'm not in love with the bill, but I'll vote for it. :D In light of such, I move that we end debate on the USSEA and put the measure to a vote. Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on February 24, 2011, 08:43:30 PM The motion is recognized and the USSEA is now up for a vote to conclude at 7 PM, February 26th.
Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: CatoMinor on February 24, 2011, 11:25:45 PM Aye, I guess.
Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: RI on February 24, 2011, 11:26:48 PM Aye. :)
Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on February 25, 2011, 05:10:00 PM Aye!
Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on February 27, 2011, 12:38:41 AM The USSEA has passed 3-0-1.
Debate is now open for the Sylvester-Tom Bill. (Well it's still open) Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: CatoMinor on March 02, 2011, 12:59:25 AM Quote The Displayed Prices Act All prices that are displayed within the Pacific Region must include the taxes Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: RI on March 02, 2011, 04:02:26 PM Quote The Displayed Prices Act All prices that are displayed within the Pacific Region must include the taxes Making people figure out the taxes in their head reinforces math skills, though. :P Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: CatoMinor on March 02, 2011, 04:23:14 PM Quote The Displayed Prices Act All prices that are displayed within the Pacific Region must include the taxes Making people figure out the taxes in their head reinforces math skills, though. :P Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Oakvale on March 03, 2011, 04:27:55 PM I know I'm probably breaching protocol by posting in here, but I had no idea that places in
One of the nation's weirder quirks, if so, and this bill has the Governor's full support. Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: RI on March 03, 2011, 04:53:08 PM I know I'm probably breaching protocol by posting in here, but I had no idea that places in One of the nation's weirder quirks, if so, and this bill has the Governor's full support. Yeah, all prices are pre-tax. Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Oakvale on March 03, 2011, 05:57:40 PM I know I'm probably breaching protocol by posting in here, but I had no idea that places in One of the nation's weirder quirks, if so, and this bill has the Governor's full support. Yeah, all prices are pre-tax. But... why? Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: RI on March 03, 2011, 06:14:18 PM I know I'm probably breaching protocol by posting in here, but I had no idea that places in One of the nation's weirder quirks, if so, and this bill has the Governor's full support. Yeah, all prices are pre-tax. But... why? I'm not really sure, but I think it has to do with the non-uniformity of sales tax rates from city-to-city and county-to-county. Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Oakvale on March 03, 2011, 06:38:38 PM I know I'm probably breaching protocol by posting in here, but I had no idea that places in One of the nation's weirder quirks, if so, and this bill has the Governor's full support. Yeah, all prices are pre-tax. But... why? I'm not really sure, but I think it has to do with the non-uniformity of sales tax rates from city-to-city and county-to-county. That's actually very interesting, thanks for the information. :) The more you know... Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on March 05, 2011, 02:26:22 AM The Senate already passed something like this.
Quote Consumer Convenience in Pricing Bill Effective January 1st, 2011 all public and private establishments must present/label all goods and services sold in said establishment with the total price paid by the consumer (including all national, regional and local sales tax). (To be fair, I guess it didn't specify if this applied to regions or just federal territories.) Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: RI on March 06, 2011, 08:01:57 PM Are we going to act on the declawing bill? I'm not entirely certain how I feel about it to be honest. I've been watching the Senate debate a similar bill, and I feel like both sides made good points.
Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: CatoMinor on March 07, 2011, 12:56:44 AM I think its time for a vote.
Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Oakvale on March 07, 2011, 05:10:52 PM FYI, I'm planning on introducing a (relatively) minor government re-tweaking bill soon, which would create fixed terms for the Justice gig and, more relevantly, reduce the size of the Council by a seat.
What say you? Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: CatoMinor on March 07, 2011, 06:24:05 PM I think the Justice should be elected, have a life term, but can be recalled by a majority of of the citizens. but thats just me.
Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: RI on March 07, 2011, 06:39:51 PM FYI, I'm planning on introducing a (relatively) minor government re-tweaking bill soon, which would create fixed terms for the Justice gig and, more relevantly, reduce the size of the Council by a seat. What say you? That's fine by me. The mechanism for selecting the Justice could go either way in my opinion. Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on March 07, 2011, 06:50:30 PM FYI, I'm planning on introducing a (relatively) minor government re-tweaking bill soon, which would create fixed terms for the Justice gig and, more relevantly, reduce the size of the Council by a seat. What say you? That's fine by me. ^^^^^ Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Oakvale on March 07, 2011, 08:27:25 PM I think the Justice should be elected, have a life term, but can be recalled by a majority of of the citizens. but thats just me. FYI, I'm planning on introducing a (relatively) minor government re-tweaking bill soon, which would create fixed terms for the Justice gig and, more relevantly, reduce the size of the Council by a seat. What say you? That's fine by me. The mechanism for selecting the Justice could go either way in my opinion. My reasoning is that this is a game, and the time scale is obviously pretty compact, so life terms aren't exactly plausible. This also gives future Governors a chance to shake things up a bit (or retain the Justice if they're doing a good job as I have a hunch my presumptive appointee will ;)). I'm hoping to introduce the same thing for the national Supreme Court if I get into the Senate, incidentally. I should have the bill ready in a couple of days. All fairly minor stuff. Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on March 08, 2011, 11:46:00 PM Should we push the Sylvester-Tom Act to a vote while we're waiting for
Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: CatoMinor on March 09, 2011, 12:15:14 AM yes
Even though none of my fellow councilors have chimed in about it at all >:( Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: RI on March 09, 2011, 12:24:37 AM yes Even though none of my fellow councilors have chimed in about it at all >:( Lies! :P I'll probably vote for it, but I have fixed feelings. As pointed out in the other thread, I fear this could lead to more cats being put down because fewer people want to adopt clawed cats. :/ Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: RI on March 09, 2011, 08:45:12 PM So now that Jbrase is SoIA, I presume that means he's no longer a Councilor?
Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on March 09, 2011, 08:46:43 PM So now that Jbrase is SoIA, I presume that means he's no longer a Councilor? In >24 hours... Senators still have time to change their votes. Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: RI on March 10, 2011, 02:14:21 PM In that case, are we going to vote on Jbrase's bill before he leaves or not?
Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on March 10, 2011, 07:26:13 PM I think we should.
Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: RI on March 10, 2011, 07:40:26 PM Jbrase is no longer a Councilor in just under an hour, assuming its 24 hours from when he was declared confirmed as SoIA.
Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: RI on March 14, 2011, 11:14:02 AM So...how's it going?
Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on March 14, 2011, 01:03:28 PM As the acting Governor, I think it is safe to hold a special election for Lt. Governor next week in order to fill the vacancy until the April election. I'm thinking next Monday. If anyone wants to declare and start campaigning, please start as soon as possible.
On another note, I will continue running the Council until a new Lt. Governor is elected. In the meantime, the vote for the Sylvester-Tom Act is hereby open, with a majority of 2 required due to the open seat. I will be following up on Oakvale's plan to reduce the Council by one seat. That'll be proposed sometime later today or tomorrow. Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: RI on March 14, 2011, 02:16:34 PM As the acting Governor, I think it is safe to hold a special election for Lt. Governor next week in order to fill the vacancy until the April election. I'm thinking next Monday. If anyone wants to declare and start campaigning, please start as soon as possible. I'll run for the Lt. Governorship. I haven't run in an IRV race in a while; I think it'll be fun. :) Besides, that way we can get some fresh blood on the Council whenever we decide to run some more elections for it. As for the Sylvester-Tom Act, after long consideration, I'll vote aye. Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on March 16, 2011, 09:28:30 AM Aye on the Sylvester-Tom Act.
Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on March 18, 2011, 01:52:09 PM The Sylvester-Tom Act has passed with a 2-0-1 vote.
x ArchangelZero The floor is now open for new legislation. Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on March 19, 2011, 06:51:50 PM I've resigned from my position on the Pacific Council. Fantasy government isn't very fun. I'm just going to vote in elections from now on.
Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: CatoMinor on March 19, 2011, 10:11:40 PM I've resigned from my position on the Pacific Council. Fantasy government isn't very fun. I'm just going to vote in elections from now on. Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Хahar 🤔 on March 19, 2011, 11:38:25 PM Well, then, I am left?
Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: RI on March 20, 2011, 12:22:27 AM I'm still here, for now. :)
Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: CatoMinor on March 20, 2011, 01:03:52 AM Seeings how the council, even if we reduce it by one seat, will only have one member soon, and finding new ones doesn't seem very likely atm, is it time to disband it and go back to the previous system? As much as I oppose direct democracy, considering the size of our population, I see it as the most efficient system. If we had more active citizens in The Pacific I would gladly support a an elected assembly like the ME/IDS/NE uses, however in our case I think it may be time to abolish the council.
Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Ebowed on March 20, 2011, 01:08:57 AM Seeings how the council, even if we reduce it by one seat, will only have one member soon, and finding new ones doesn't seem very likely atm, is it time to disband it and go back to the previous system? Yes. Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: CatoMinor on March 20, 2011, 02:01:04 AM Realistic and Xahar are the only two left, how do you two feel about abolishing the council?
Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Oakvale on March 20, 2011, 03:09:01 PM Not really my place to say, but since I was the one who introduced it I guess I can provide a comment. :P
The Council is, I think, an interesting idea, and was a bit of fun, but if it doesn't work and you guys want to disband it I'll vote in favour. Still, it was worth a try, I think. :) The regions are made for democratic experiments like this, and they don't always work out, but it was interesting. Maybe when the region gets more members we can resurrect it. ;) Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: RI on March 20, 2011, 06:10:56 PM I would see if there are any others who want in the council, but if not, I won't oppose abolition.
Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: RI on March 21, 2011, 04:18:08 PM As the acting Governor, I think it is safe to hold a special election for Lt. Governor next week in order to fill the vacancy until the April election. I'm thinking next Monday. Is that still going to happen today? Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on March 21, 2011, 10:17:10 PM As the acting Governor, I think it is safe to hold a special election for Lt. Governor next week in order to fill the vacancy until the April election. I'm thinking next Monday. Is that still going to happen today? Sorry, some personal matters came up. I'm pushing the election to Thursday. I don't have any issue with abolishing the Council unless we get a few more active members. Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: bgwah on March 22, 2011, 07:24:34 PM I think you can just appoint RI under one of the constitutional amendments I passed.
Anyway, yeah it would probably make sense to abolish the council for now. We could always bring it back later if there was a demand. Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: RI on March 23, 2011, 01:00:07 AM I think you can just appoint RI under one of the constitutional amendments I passed. Anyway, yeah it would probably make sense to abolish the council for now. We could always bring it back later if there was a demand. But...but...elections are more fun. :'( Maybe it would be better to suspend the Council rather than abolish it, with some candidate requirement needed to reinstate it? Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on March 23, 2011, 12:38:20 PM I think you can just appoint RI under one of the constitutional amendments I passed. Anyway, yeah it would probably make sense to abolish the council for now. We could always bring it back later if there was a demand. But...but...elections are more fun. :'( Maybe it would be better to suspend the Council rather than abolish it, with some candidate requirement needed to reinstate it? Hmm that may be a better alternative we can try until we have a minimum of let's say 3 candidates for the Council? That way all of the seats are filled if we push through with reducing the Council seats. That being said, I will now propose the folllowing measures: Quote Pacific Council Reform Act 1. The Pacific Supreme Council is hereby reduced to three seats. 2. One seat will be up for contention every four months. The other two seats will be up for contention every four months in-between those of the previously noted seat. 3. The first seat will now have the classification of Class A, the remaining seats will now be classified as Class B. 4, There must be at least one candidate for each seat at all times. 5. Should there ever be a deficit in declared candidates, the Council is suspended until further notice. All legislative powers will return to the People's Assembly until the required number of candidates declared. 6. The Councilors are now allowed to vote within the People's Assembly. Quote Pacific Justice Fixed Term Act 1. The Pacific Justice is hereby required to be confirmed by the Pacific Assembly every four months from the date of appointment. 2. If the Justice is not confirmed, the position is to be vacated. 3. Should there be extraordinary circumstances, the Justice may be removed from office through form of petition. The petition must be signed by 2/3rds of the Pacific's population. Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Oakvale on March 23, 2011, 07:22:35 PM Just popping in to note that a big - maybe the big - advantage of the Council, IMO, is that it'd provide a way for new members to get into electoral politics. And obviously attracting new members to the region is a priority.
*flees back to the Northeast* Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on March 24, 2011, 01:20:11 AM Just letting you all know that a single Aye vote would technically be enough for me to pass it with a tiebreaker.
Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: bgwah on March 24, 2011, 01:25:55 AM Just popping in to note that a big - maybe the big - advantage of the Council, IMO, is that it'd provide a way for new members to get into electoral politics. And obviously attracting new members to the region is a priority. *flees back to the Northeast* Pfft, yeah, thanks for helping so much with that. :P Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Junkie on March 24, 2011, 04:03:07 PM Just popping in to note that a big - maybe the big - advantage of the Council, IMO, is that it'd provide a way for new members to get into electoral politics. And obviously attracting new members to the region is a priority. *flees back to the Northeast* Pfft, yeah, thanks for helping so much with that. :P Hey, I am here. Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: RI on March 27, 2011, 11:27:46 PM Since voting is apparently open, I'll use my last act as a Councilor to vote aye on both bills.
Title: Re: Pacific Supreme Council Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on March 28, 2011, 01:46:56 AM And as my last Act as leader of the Council, both bills are hereby tie-broken for Aye.
x ArchangelZero |