Confirmation of panag as VP - Page 3

Shiber · December 17, 2002, 16:40

Quote:

Originally posted by panag
panag > continues to plant trees for clean air

Some politicians prefer to kiss babies,

but it has been said before than you do things your own way, so I guess it's ok.

E_T · December 17, 2002, 16:42

I almost voted, but I'll wait one more day.

E_T

Meshelic · December 17, 2002, 17:13

Glad to see THAT over with.

Was like an Israeli civil war in here for a second.

Chairman Meshelic

Shiber · December 17, 2002, 17:40

I don't like to admit it but most Israelis are rude.

Maybe some day Firaxis will decide to make a "Hebrews" civ. I can only imagine how the Civilopedia entry would look like.
"The Hebrews are rude and militaristic. Their Unique Unit is the Panag."

(I'm joking about the Panag reference of course. You know, it's really sad that you can't use humor in here anymore without having some people pointing blaming fingers at you and taking personal offense. Yes, you know who I mean)

Meshelic · December 17, 2002, 17:53

Well yes I agree, Israelis as a whole have a distinctive type of rudeness, but I think it more has to do with the fact that Israelis are very methodical, analytical and come off sounding more mean-spirited than they really are.

I plan to name one of my units "the panag" in my SP games...

don't worry, panag, it'll be a good unit.

GhengisFarb™ · December 17, 2002, 18:50

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Shiber
"The Hebrews are rude and militaristic. Their Unique Unit is the Panag."
QUOTE]
What benefits does the Rude trait confer? And their UU should still be the "Wrath of God" I put in my scenario not the panag.

joncnunn · December 17, 2002, 19:00

I'm thinking that the Isreali civ would be religious & militaristic, no UU but have the following charaterstics:

1. Prior to them discovering Polythesim, all Isreali units fight with doubled atack and defense points.
(Warriors : 2/2/1, Archers : 4/2/1, SpearMen : 2/4/1, Swordmen : 6/4/1, Chariots : 2/2/2, Horse Men : 4/2/2)

2. When the Isrealis discover Polytheism, all their units fights with halved attack and defense points until they discover Monothesim.
(Warriors : 1/1/1, Archers : 1/1/1, SpearMen : 1/1/1, Swordmen : 2/1/1, Chariots : 1/1/2, Horsemen : 1/1/2)

3. When the Isrealis discover Monotheism, their units go back to normal.

4. Should an Isreali civ be wiped out of the game prior to them discovering any middle age tech, they will be respawn, but not until the beginning of the modern era, but be granted Metropolises in their former homeland (anybody in their home land will be kicked out) with several military units in each city with all normal improvements.

WhiteBandit · December 17, 2002, 19:41

As I stated earlier, I did vote no...

Perhaps I am Shiber in disguise!!

have a nice day,

Meshelic · December 17, 2002, 20:37

Quote:

Originally posted by joncnunn
I'm thinking that the Isreali civ would be religious & militaristic, no UU but have the following charaterstics:

1. Prior to them discovering Polythesim, all Isreali units fight with doubled atack and defense points.
(Warriors : 2/2/1, Archers : 4/2/1, SpearMen : 2/4/1, Swordmen : 6/4/1, Chariots : 2/2/2, Horse Men : 4/2/2)

2. When the Isrealis discover Polytheism, all their units fights with halved attack and defense points until they discover Monothesim.
(Warriors : 1/1/1, Archers : 1/1/1, SpearMen : 1/1/1, Swordmen : 2/1/1, Chariots : 1/1/2, Horsemen : 1/1/2)

3. When the Isrealis discover Monotheism, their units go back to normal.

4. Should an Isreali civ be wiped out of the game prior to them discovering any middle age tech, they will be respawn, but not until the beginning of the modern era, but be granted Metropolises in their former homeland (anybody in their home land will be kicked out) with several military units in each city with all normal improvements.

Wow. The potential here is amazing. I like this alot.!Especially the parts about having to discover Monotheism, respawning if wiped out, and a unit called the "Wrath of God". Make it look like the Ark of the Covenent or something....

Perhaps the MOD'S forum needs a new addition, eh?

Arnelos · December 17, 2002, 20:51

wow... talk about thread evolution

Meshelic · December 17, 2002, 21:30

it's called distraction.

MrWhereItsAt · December 17, 2002, 22:30

Think about what the VP has to do. The main role of the VP has been to be the President when the Prez is busy elsewhere. This means we are being aksed here to say whether we think panag is Presidential material for short bursts.

There is no safety in anyone "keeping an eye" on the VP - if they are needed, their purpose will be to REPLACE the President. There are no safeguards.

So, if you haven't voted, or even if you HAVE, think over one thing: do you believe panag is qualified to have Presidential duties where the need arises? The answer to this question and this question alone will determine your vote. No need for any more ranting (as fun as it can be).

Anything personal aside, I voted No.

GhengisFarb™ · December 17, 2002, 22:49

Quote:

Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt
No need for any more ranting.

What do you mean "no more ranting"? Its exactly this kind of post that I can't stand! If I want to rant I will and you people and your twisted personal agendas against ranting are going to get it.

I hereby move we impeach MrWIA for this blatant violation of the entire purpose of our constitiution.

Arnelos · December 18, 2002, 00:04

Quote:

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
I hereby move we impeach MrWIA for this blatant violation of the entire purpose of our constitiution.

Impeach from what position?

EDIT: punctuation

WhiteBandit · December 18, 2002, 02:29

I guess we'd have to have it as an "I.O.U." Or rather, an "Impeachment Owed to You!"

You know... in case Mr. WIA tries to become President again .

notyoueither · December 18, 2002, 03:58

This thread is going to silly now, and that is not appropriate.

Panag · December 18, 2002, 08:37

hi ,

just here to take a look

its a great honor to see this thread , ......

panag > is speechless

anyway its a job with a great responsability and thanks to the people who have shown some feelings and emotions , ( both sides )

it looks now that one "panag" has to step out of the darkness of the basement

well guys and girls thanks again

have a nice day & merry X-mass

DAVOUT · December 18, 2002, 09:36

Quote:

Originally posted by Arnelos

Interestingly, I actually don't agree with your argument here (yeah, I know that doesn't help me, but that's beside the point). I think the Senate is perfectly within its rights to oppose a Vice Presidential choice or my Court appointments for political reasons. In either case (Court nominees or Vice Presidential nominees), if a nominee fails, I just forward another one and see if the Senate is willing to accept that one. I'll grant that this has the potential to get out of control if the Senate kills every single nominee I send them, but I find that possibility unlikely.

I was mainly referring to the change adopted in the new con regarding the VP. We were said: the VP must not be elected because a VP must have good relations with the President, and the best way is to have the President choosing the VP. That clearly means that, as far as the VP is concerned, all political reasons of choice are given up by the Senate. The approval by the Senate (I underline that an approval is not an election - incidentally, election means choice-) can only be a benediction by what the Senate says: I recognize that this guy is the VP nominated by the President, unless of course there are non political reasons to reject him, such as crimes previously committed, being French, or other horrible personal things.
If you let the Senate use political reasons to reject the VP-nominated, this approval becomes an election, but an election where the citizens were not allowed to be candidate, which is contrary to the constitution. But the worst is that it deprives the President of the freedom of choice that the change was supposed to grant him.

I did not oppose this change on the basis of that understanding, otherwise it was useless. Anyway, I did not vote the new con

for another motive, linked also to the VP.

I appreciate that all this is awfully boring, but as it applies for the first time, a clarification could save some posts in the next election.

GhengisFarb™ · December 18, 2002, 09:58

So what you're saying is that if the US President appoints a 16 year old high school kid Attorney General because the kid delivered a pizza to the White House in less than 5 minutes the US Congress has to let him be Attorney General of the United States unless he has committed a crime?

DAVOUT · December 18, 2002, 10:12

Quote:

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
So what you're saying is that if the US President appoints a 16 year old high school kid Attorney General because the kid delivered a pizza to the White House in less than 5 minutes the US Congress has to let him be Attorney General of the United States unless he has committed a crime?

1. I am not discussing of the US constitution, nor of RL; I am just interested in the coherence of the Apolytonian constitution.

2. In the case you describe, I would suggest that the Congress addresses first the case of the President.

Aro · December 18, 2002, 11:05

Quote:

Originally posted by DAVOUT

2. In the case you describe, I would suggest that the Congress addresses first the case of the President.

George can't deliver a pizza in less than five minutes. He's not qualified...

Shiber · December 18, 2002, 11:14

Quote:

Originally posted by WhiteBandit
As I stated earlier, I did vote no...

Perhaps I am Shiber in disguise!!

You idiot!! You blew our cover.
Oh well.

GhengisFarb™ · December 18, 2002, 11:32

Quote:

Originally posted by DAVOUT

1. I am not discussing of the US constitution, nor of RL; I am just interested in the coherence of the Apolytonian constitution.

2. In the case you describe, I would suggest that the Congress addresses first the case of the President.

I simply stating your argument in real life words. The fact that the Senate is to approve the vice president does not restrict them ONLY to whether or not the candidate has done something illegal. They must believe or at least partially believe that the candidate can perform the duties of President.

DAVOUT · December 18, 2002, 13:04

Quote:

Originally posted by GhengisFarb

They must believe or at least partially believe that the candidate can perform the duties of President.

No, in withdrawing the VP from the election race, the Senators have delegated this responsibility to the President, the approval being a simple acknowledgment of the nomination. If they still believe that they have the responsibility, it would have been simpler and shorter to have the VP elected.

And the funny thing in this mess is that the President can veto the bill not approving the VP (if by less than 2/3) and nominate the same guy again and again ...

E_T · December 18, 2002, 14:11

O.K., now we are getting silly....

E_T

GhengisFarb™ · December 18, 2002, 14:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Aro

George can't deliver a pizza in less than five minutes. He's not qualified...

Neither could Bill, he always ate it in route.

Aro · December 18, 2002, 15:13

Quote:

Originally posted by GhengisFarb

Neither could Bill, he always ate it in route.

Arnelos · December 18, 2002, 15:45

Quote:

Originally posted by DAVOUT

No, in withdrawing the VP from the election race, the Senators have delegated this responsibility to the President, the approval being a simple acknowledgment of the nomination. If they still believe that they have the responsibility, it would have been simpler and shorter to have the VP elected.

And the funny thing in this mess is that the President can veto the bill not approving the VP (if by less than 2/3) and nominate the same guy again and again ...

(JK!)

Aro · December 18, 2002, 23:52

Bump. This poll expires in eleven hours or so.

MrWhereItsAt · December 20, 2002, 12:03

Ah f***