SAM News Corp. Comment and Debate thread

[Sam Spade]

This is the thread for any discussion to occur relating to GM issues.

If there are any requests, questions or complaints to me, please post them here also as I will keep track of everything posted here as well.

[Ebowed]

I suppose this would be the best place to put this.

Atheists, Libertarians Win Senate Battle

I do not like the implication that Senators who supported the bill were Atheists.  (I realize this was not directly stated, but the implication is very strong.)  Despite the thoughts of some, Christianity is, I believe, a religion that promotes freedom of religion, no matter what we think of the opposing religions.  However, removing "under God" was not my main focus in getting the bill passed; in fact, it was not a focus of mine at all.  I strongly opposed governmental sanction of a pledge, period.

I firmly believe in the Christian God, as I'm sure does Senator PBrunsel, who also voted in favor of the bill.  This implication of only Atheists and Libertarians supporting the bill is further evident in this section of the article:

Atheists and civil libertarians were at the forefront of making this law a reality, as both Senator Ebowed and Vice-President Emsworth placed it at the forefront of their legislative agenda, and with passionate debate along with some strong-arm tactics passed the legislation which only a month before seemed doomed to failure.

Further, I must ask what strong-arm tactics were used by the supportive side: the only thing I would consider close to that is the motion to table requested by Senator DanielX, from the opposing side.

At first, VP Emsworth and Senator Ebowed, along with other supporters of this legislation, wanted to reduce the pledge to the 1923 wording

I firmly opposed removing "under God" from the Pledge, and I opposed any other changes to the wording such as the "under Dave" amendment.

[Sam Spade]

I suppose this would be the best place to put this.

Atheists, Libertarians Win Senate Battle

I do not like the implication that Senators who supported the bill were Atheists.  (I realize this was not directly stated, but the implication is very strong.)  Despite the thoughts of some, Christianity is, I believe, a religion that promotes freedom of religion, no matter what we think of the opposing religions.  However, removing "under God" was not my main focus in getting the bill passed; in fact, it was not a focus of mine at all.  I strongly opposed governmental sanction of a pledge, period.

I firmly believe in the Christian God, as I'm sure does Senator PBrunsel, who also voted in favor of the bill.  This implication of only Atheists and Libertarians supporting the bill is further evident in this section of the article:

Atheists and civil libertarians were at the forefront of making this law a reality, as both Senator Ebowed and Vice-President Emsworth placed it at the forefront of their legislative agenda, and with passionate debate along with some strong-arm tactics passed the legislation which only a month before seemed doomed to failure.

Further, I must ask what strong-arm tactics were used by the supportive side: the only thing I would consider close to that is the motion to table requested by Senator DanielX, from the opposing side.

At first, VP Emsworth and Senator Ebowed, along with other supporters of this legislation, wanted to reduce the pledge to the 1923 wording

I firmly opposed removing "under God" from the Pledge, and I opposed any other changes to the wording such as the "under Dave" amendment.

Hmmm...  The last part will be corrected.

The first part and second parts stand as a bit of opinion getting into a news article. 

It naturally happens (here as in all news articles) and I intend for it to be that way. 

As a little FYI:  the GM is entirely impartial, but will push things slightly one way or the other depending on any number of factors.  I am a reactive GM, but will not hesitate to be proactive if I spot something where proactivity is necessary.  Scenarios will occur here and there.

Where I differ from John Ford is that in most legislative and foreign policy cases, I will take into account the opinions and natural reactions of the Atlasian population and the world as a whole, as opposed to just those citizens who have registered as voters here.

As to where that will lead things, it's up for you to guess. 

[Ebowed]

Hmmm... The last part will be corrected.

Thanks

[True Democrat]

Yay Qatar

[The Duke]

I bask in the glow of my own greatness.  In my endless forsight, I voted against the Balanced Budget Amendment to the first constitution and warned against including similar provisions in the new Constitution.

The Pacific Region, which unlike the Federal Government has no balanced budget requirement, actually has a balanced budget AND the flexibility to deal with crises.

Oh well.

[Sam Spade]

I bask in the glow of my own greatness.  In my endless forsight, I voted against the Balanced Budget Amendment to the first constitution and warned against including similar provisions in the new Constitution.

The Pacific Region, which unlike the Federal Government has no balanced budget requirement, actually has a balanced budget AND the flexibility to deal with crises.

Oh well.

I would think that you, of all people, would find it highly amusing that the person who got the balanced budget requirement in place and opposed tax raises fervently would now be writing scenarios which will cause either one or both of those things to happen.

At least I find it amusing, and it proves that I treat this position in a non-partisan manner (I hope)

[The Duke]

I bask in the glow of my own greatness.  In my endless forsight, I voted against the Balanced Budget Amendment to the first constitution and warned against including similar provisions in the new Constitution.

The Pacific Region, which unlike the Federal Government has no balanced budget requirement, actually has a balanced budget AND the flexibility to deal with crises.

Oh well.

I would think that you, of all people, would find it highly amusing that the person who got the balanced budget requirement in place and opposed tax raises fervently would now be writing scenarios which will cause either one or both of those things to happen.

At least I find it amusing, and it proves that I treat this position in a non-partisan manner (I hope)

Oh, its amusing alright, I was just letting everyone know "I told ya so".

[WMS]

Shaking the cage, are we Sam?

[Sam Spade]

Shaking the cage, are we Sam?

Well, you wouldn't expect me to be a boring GM, now would you? 

[WMS]

Shaking the cage, are we Sam?

Well, you wouldn't expect me to be a boring GM, now would you? 

That would be bad, agreed.

[Siege40]

I'm assuming not a lot of heavy duty trade is done between Atlasia, Spain and France. Besides, couldn't a company buy a good in Britain from France and sell it here, negating any tarrif because of the EU?

Siege

[King]

Where is the article about how I invented the internet?

[WMS]

I'm assuming not a lot of heavy duty trade is done between Atlasia, Spain and France. Besides, couldn't a company buy a good in Britain from France and sell it here, negating any tarrif because of the EU?

Siege

Heck, neither you nor I had any sanctions on Spain, so you could even negate the tariff that way!

[CheeseWhiz]

Sam, how much is the salary of the Midwest Governor and Lt. Governor?

[Sam Spade]

Sam, how much is the salary of the Midwest Governor and Lt. Governor?

Given the salaries of typical high-level government officers, I'll say this:

Governor:  $250,000 a year
Lt. Governor:  $150,000 a year

Of course, with graft and kickbacks you could earn a whole lot more.

[CheeseWhiz]

Sam, how much is the salary of the Midwest Governor and Lt. Governor?

Given the salaries of typical high-level government officers, I'll say this:

Governor:  $250,000 a year
Lt. Governor:  $150,000 a year

Of course, with graft and kickbacks you could earn a whole lot more.

So us cutting our salaries wouldn't help that much?

[Sam Spade]

Sam, how much is the salary of the Midwest Governor and Lt. Governor?

Given the salaries of typical high-level government officers, I'll say this:

Governor:  $250,000 a year
Lt. Governor:  $150,000 a year

Of course, with graft and kickbacks you could earn a whole lot more.

So us cutting our salaries wouldn't help that much?

Nope.  Issuing like a 5-10% decrease in salaries among government employees in the Midwest would help, however the workers would probably not like that.  The unions wouldn't either.

[CheeseWhiz]

Me and Jas, the only Government officials of the Midwest to my knowledge, (am I wrong about that?) have both agreed in a radical decrease in our salaries, I’m talking about 5-0 dollars per hour.

[Sam Spade]

I'm assuming not a lot of heavy duty trade is done between Atlasia, Spain and France. Besides, couldn't a company buy a good in Britain from France and sell it here, negating any tarrif because of the EU?

Siege

This is not an EU action, though there is always the possibility France might engender such.  The goods trade between France and the US is estimated to be $14 billion exports (US to France) $13 imports (France to US).  I don't have Spain's numbers right now, but they're lower.

Of course, expanded trading with Great Britain is a possibility.  It won't do everything, but let's see how the market reacts first.

[Sam Spade]

Me and Jas, the only Government officials of the Midwest to my knowledge, (am I wrong about that?) have both agreed in a radical decrease in our salaries, I’m talking about 5-0 dollars per hour.

If there is no other legislation that authorizes different offices and branches of government and bureaucracy to be created, then that is correct (I am not exactly that familiar with Midwest law).

However, as Midwest Governor you do have control over all state branches of government and bureaucracy within you Region.  I am sure that is a huge mass of employees.  How many I don't know.

Here's the problem.  You're talking about a Regional government that has billions of dollars in revenue from the state governments it controls.  John Ford did a number on that in an earlier article, but I don't remember the exact amount.

A cut in your salary would be merely a drop in the bucket in comparison.  Besides, government officials and employees don't get paid that much anyway.

Still, the best thing to do to actually have some impact in that area, is to cut government employees' salaries or benefits, redo the pension system or layoff government employees from the staffs.

[Ebowed]

Unnamed investors on the NYSE have voiced private concerns to the Daily Planet that the increasingly anti-free trade Senate will continue to act against various free trade agreements signed in the past, such as NAFTA and present agreements with China.

You are correct that this Senate is increasingly anti-free trade; that's why they support CAFTA.

Anyway, the Senate already voted in favor of repealing NAFTA a few sessions ago, but President PBrunsel just vetoed it and there was no override.  (Even though they could have got one if they did hold a vote on veto override.)

These same investors have privately told the Planet that the present Senate is unknowningly trying to put the Atlasian economy at a severe disadvantage worldwide and some have privately questioned whether some elected Senators have any idea how an global economy works at all.

How subtle of you.

General concerns over import-export trade in Atlasia have grown since France and Spain's joint agreement to impose partial economic restrictions against Atlasia and the defeat of a bill that would have repealed the Taiwanese Defense Protection Act, a law which many investors and businessman say is slowing down trade between China and Atlasia and is hurting Atlasia's economy as a whole. 

That bill would not have repealed the whole Act, just one clause.  But don't blame me, I was the only one who voted in favor of that bill.  You can take your pro "free trade" Senators who all opposed it and celebrate its defeat.

[The Duke]

These same investors have privately told the Planet that the present Senate is unknowningly trying to put the Atlasian economy at a severe disadvantage worldwide and some have privately questioned whether some elected Senators have any idea how an global economy works at all.

How subtle of you.

Accurate, too.

[Frodo]

Many political observers have long speculated that the continued rightward economic drift of the Independent Liberal Party under Emsworth could eventually damage it strongly, as it would end up turning off the leftist base of many of its members, driving them to the Social Democratic Party or a new, standard leftist party.

Ever since the dissolution of the Democrat and Republican parties in Atlasia, the Constitutional Union Party has held its own as being a dominant party in Atlasian politics.  At certain times, other parties have potentially been as powerful, but weakened due to outside pressures or inactivity. 

The Farmer-Labor Party and the Atlasian Conservative Alliance are examples of two of these parties.  The Farmer-Labor Party doesn't exist any more, and the ACA, though still strong, has not shown the power it had two months ago.  For the last 2 months, it has instead been the Independent Liberal Party that has formed the counterweight to the Consitutional Union Party.  In some ways the Independent Liberal Party has tried to become the Constitutional Union Party, and that could be its undoing.

And it could all be the undoing of the Emsworth/Q candidacy.

Emsworth, if you don't mind me asking, why are you an Independent Liberal, and not a member of the Constitutional Union Party? 

[Emsworth]

Emsworth, if you don't mind me asking, why are you an Independent Liberal, and not a member of the Constitutional Union Party? 

I have always viewed social freedoms as more important than economic ones. I am strongly in favor of the ILP's stress on social liberty. Furthermore, I would not like to abandon the party which has supported me, and has elected me its chairman.