Re: Psam Frank - Sovereign with his own laws and court
Posted: Thu Feb 11, 2016 7:02 pm
NO. ONE. CARES.
IT. IS. BS.
YOU. ARE. BORING.
IT. IS. BS.
YOU. ARE. BORING.
Quatloos! The views herein are not those of Quatloosia Publishing LLC -- Legal Issues Fax to 877-698-0678 and admin issues to sooltauq [at] gmail.com
https://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/
Don't you mean his psilly psystem?his silly system,
That too, also.Dr. Caligari wrote:Don't you mean his psilly psystem?his silly system,
In a real-world, people enter and leave the voting pool constantly through birth, death, and geographical relocation. In a real world, the ones hunting for the top seat don't say "don't vote for me, I like 2nd place".I remain a Secondary Collaborator, one vote behind Psam for the position of Prime Representative, and this how I wish it to stay.
The kicker is this one one though:V. ARGUMENTS
A. Cycle of Wellness (III.A)
(10) I believe that just by having intentions to conduct a hunger strike under the conditions that he has
stated, he causes the emotional wellness of other members to suffer.
B. Self-wellness (III.B)
(11) I find Psam’s emotional wellness to be a valid consideration in this matter but I do not believe that
it is a greater lawful priority than the emotional wellness of others in these circumstances.
Will Psam accept the command of the panel? It seems to question whether he will in the case he doesn't like the results.C. Sovereignty of the individual (III.C)
(12) I believe that Psam’s sovereignty is impeded by a restriction being placed upon his freedom to live
or cease to live his life as he pleases. However, I believe that his responsible sovereignty, as any other
member’s, is justified by having demonstrated willingness to take on certain responsibilities to other
human beings. His intentions indicate a possible lack of responsibility if those intentions are not
consistent with the principles he has agreed to uphold as a condition of being regarded as responsibly
sovereign. If he were to fail to adhere to any order of the panel assembled for this hearing, it would be a
demonstration that his assertion of his own sovereignty is fraudulent.
are you mocking Pshammy Davis Jr.?Dr. Caligari wrote:Don't you mean his psilly psystem?his silly system,
This whole post, arayder, was brilliant. It appears as if You are able to treat even a person with whom You have the strongest difference of opinion with respect and courtesy. That's an admirable quality. Thank You.arayder wrote:The biggest problem with Psam's idea is that politicians will be less likely early in their terms of office to do something which is temporarily unpopular, but ultimately works for the common good and in the light of history turns out to be a good thing.
If Congress were elected using an interactive electoral system, and the Senate were elected to six year terms as they are now, wouldn't this achieve the same cooling off period for the legislation that comes out of the hot legislative house? Wouldn't this also mean that the hot legislation coming out of the House would be far more consistent with the genuine democratic wishes of the voters instead of the money of the lobby groups? Then while it cooled off in the Senate's saucer, wouldn't hot headed voters have time to reconsider the decisions they have made?arayder wrote:Likewise the Senate has been called the saucer into which the the hot legislation of the House is poured
Whether it would be a good idea or not is neither here nor there-- it is NOT the law, and Psam has no right to ignore legally-enacted laws just because his pet scheme has not been adopted. That's what this thread is about.I think Psam has completely ignored the possibility that this woeful situation would become a full blown disaster if his idea was adopted.
This problem of 'over reaction in the short term' was demonstrated as a weakness of Greek direct democracy.arayder wrote:A more simple approach in Psam's vane would be, as Ben Franklin recommended, that there be only one legislative branch with a short term.
The system Psam proposes runs the risk, I believe, of becoming little more than a disaster in which monied interests use the media to manipulate the public who in turn impetuously runs competent politicians out of office over a single vote.
We suffer from that sort of a thing here in the states now in which well funded interest groups jam the airwaves with propaganda. The saving grace is that terms are long enough for the public to cool down and for the representative to either explain the vote or for the vote to be proved wise.
I think Psam has completely ignored the possibility that this woeful situation would become a full blown disaster if his idea was adopted.
I think more to the point is that Psammy wanted to MAKE everyone do it his way whether they wanted to or not, by way of a court action, since the majority did not fall at his feet in open adoration and acceptance of his cockamamie idea. Since I would be one of the ones in theory voting to accept or reject it, rather than openly and honestly putting it to a vote to the public it would be foisted on. I therefore announce my vote of absolute and utter rejection and repudiation (of it) as an ill conceived, ill designed, and utterly cockamamie fantasm. Hardly the hallmarks of the benevolent democrat he shows.Dr. Caligari wrote:Whether it would be a good idea or not is neither here nor there-- it is NOT the law, and Psam has no right to ignore legally-enacted laws just because his pet scheme has not been adopted. That's what this thread is about.I think Psam has completely ignored the possibility that this woeful situation would become a full blown disaster if his idea was adopted.
I think the best way to reply to Psam is to pick the closest example to his system that I can find and illustrate the shortcomings. In the province of Alberta where I live, for matters of local municipal government, the local citizenry have petition power to change bylaws, force investigations of local authorities, or force a bylaw to go to a referendum. Some of these actions can be triggered off by as few as 20% of the voters. It's intended as a check on unpopular actions by a town council.notorial dissent wrote:Dr. Caligari wrote:I think Psam has completely ignored the possibility that this woeful situation would become a full blown disaster if his idea was adopted.
I agree.Dr. Caligari wrote:Whether it would be a good idea or not is neither here nor there-- it is NOT the law, and Psam has no right to ignore legally-enacted laws just because his pet scheme has not been adopted. That's what this thread is about.I think Psam has completely ignored the possibility that this woeful situation would become a full blown disaster if his idea was adopted.
Which is precisely my point, and he won't try that route since he knows it will fail overwhelmingly.arayder wrote:Psam's only avenue at this point is political action seeking to change the law, not claiming rights he, or no one else has.
If the core problem he seeks to address is unresponsive and unaccountable elected officials then Psam's got a lot of potential allies. The challenge would be that the allies might well advocate doable solutions like laws which facilitate impeachments and or recall elections.