A disgusting vat of filth that no self-respecting intelligent person would wade into. - Page 137

Hank Chinaski · 12-14-2006, 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cletus Miller
Do you really think that the Dems will let Johnson out of their sight? It's not like Johnson's kids went to high school in SD--the whole family may as well be Virginians at this point.

but he's got to be able to vote to help them. so it's 50-49 now?

Cletus Miller · 12-15-2006, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
but he's got to be able to vote to help them. so it's 50-49 now?

But it's fundamentally about who sets the agenda. If it were 50-50, then everyone would have to play nice and share. And the Dems don't want to do that, especially after the nonsense Frist foisted on the Senate.

Cletus Miller · 12-15-2006, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
It's not like you can get many direct flights from D.C. to Sioux Falls, let alone Vermillion.

Is there even commercial air service to Vermillion? Anyway, my point was that, if Johnson needs long term care, his immediate family doesn't really live in SD, so its not as if they'd move him to SD to be close.

Hank Chinaski · 12-15-2006, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cletus Miller
But it's fundamentally about who sets the agenda. If it were 50-50, then everyone would have to play nice and share. And the Dems don't want to do that, especially after the nonsense Frist foisted on the Senate.

I realize that. I'm just saying it cuts the power a bit more.

Tyrone Slothrop · 12-15-2006, 10:03 AM

Spanky will like this:

Belgium’s public television broadcaster RTBF was in hot water on Thursday after running a hoax news show declaring that the powerful Flemish region had declared independence, breaking up the nation. The 30-minute programme, in which a reporter outside the royal palace claimed the king had fled the country, fooled thousands of viewers, who besieged the French-language channel with phone calls.

But Guy Verhofstadt, the (Flemish) prime minister, was unamused, branding the show a bad joke. Some ambassadors were also said to have been fooled, sending news of the “split” to their home countries. There were even comparisons to Orson Welles’ War of the Worlds broadcasts. One frustrated official said: “The frightening thing is that, with all the tension, things like this could become self-fulfilling prophecies.”

FT

eta: And there's this column about Turkey and the EU.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) · 12-15-2006, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I realize that. I'm just saying it cuts the power a bit more.

How? 50 votes for beats 49 votes against any time. As long as Rs don't have 50 votes, the Ds stay nominally in power. As things are, because it's so close, they already "share" power to a fair degree. E.g., committee assignments are close, and so are staff and budget levels for the committees. And neither party has 60 votes, which is in many respects the more meaningful number in the Senate.

Hank Chinaski · 12-15-2006, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
How? 50 votes for beats 49 votes against any time. As long as Rs don't have 50 votes, the Ds stay nominally in power. As things are, because it's so close, they already "share" power to a fair degree. E.g., committee assignments are close, and so are staff and budget levels for the committees. And neither party has 60 votes, which is in many respects the more meaningful number in the Senate.

on some issues the Dems didn't have 51 votes (ie Iraq) they had 50 UNLESS they convince 1 R to switch. Rs might be more inclined to switch on Iraq then they were before Nov. Now the Ds have to get 2 to switch.

Adder · 12-15-2006, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
on some issues the Dems didn't have 51 votes (ie Iraq) they had 50 UNLESS they convince 1 R to switch. Rs might be more inclined to switch on Iraq then they were before Nov. Now the Ds have to get 2 to switch.

Why do they need 50?

Hank Chinaski · 12-15-2006, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Adder
Why do they need 50?

before they needed 51- they lose on ties. now there are 99 votes. when one side gets 49 the other side gets 50.

Cletus Miller · 12-15-2006, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
before they needed 51- they lose on ties. now there are 99 votes. when one side gets 49 the other side gets 50.

Hank--you are truly too generous.

Adder · 12-15-2006, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
before they needed 51- they lose on ties. now there are 99 votes. when one side gets 49 the other side gets 50.

okay... too much vodka at the firm holiday party last night for me, clearly.

Hank Chinaski · 12-15-2006, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cletus Miller
Hank--you are truly too generous.

no, thank you.

Spanky · 12-15-2006, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Spanky will like this:

Belgium’s public television broadcaster RTBF was in hot water on Thursday after running a hoax news show declaring that the powerful Flemish region had declared independence, breaking up the nation. The 30-minute programme, in which a reporter outside the royal palace claimed the king had fled the country, fooled thousands of viewers, who besieged the French-language channel with phone calls.

But Guy Verhofstadt, the (Flemish) prime minister, was unamused, branding the show a bad joke. Some ambassadors were also said to have been fooled, sending news of the “split” to their home countries. There were even comparisons to Orson Welles’ War of the Worlds broadcasts. One frustrated official said: “The frightening thing is that, with all the tension, things like this could become self-fulfilling prophecies.”

FT

eta: And there's this column about Turkey and the EU.

I am always hoping that I am wrong about this stuff, and that the world is not as tribal and intolerant as I presume it is. I really hope my predictions are wrong, and that Belgium holds together and Turkey does get into the EU. But I sure wouldn't bet that way, unless as SS says, I get some sweet, sweet odds.

Spanky · 12-15-2006, 04:05 PM

There have been some discussions about moderators on this board. I realize that I really have no clue to how this board operates, and correct me if I am wrong, but what power does a moderator have? It just seems to me that when one is designated a moderator that means they are required to consistently read and post on this board even when they are slammed at work and the board is about as exciting as drying paste.

And in return for doing this they get?

So assuming that the answer to the above questions it nothing, then how do people become moderators? Does RT threaten them with bodily harm or something? Kidnap a family member? And who is threatening RT?

Is there a difference between being a moderator and being a victim of extortion or blackmail?

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) · 12-15-2006, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
There have been some discussions about moderators on this board. I realize that I really have no clue to how this board operates, and correct me if I am wrong, but what power does a moderator have? It just seems to me that when one is designated a moderator that means they are required to consistently read and post on this board even when they are slammed at work and the board is about as exciting as drying paste.

And in return for doing this they get?

So assuming that the answer to the above questions it nothing, then how do people become moderators? Does RT threaten them with bodily harm or something? Kidnap a family member? And who is threatening RT?

Is there a difference between being a moderator and being a victim of extortion or blackmail?

Years ago people volunteered to moderate. Penske and Ty both do. There's no requirement for posting, and limited requirement for monitoring, especially since this is all generally uncensored. In theory one can edit or delete a post; in practice, woe be unto the moderator who does.