Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
You sure ain't the first 'girl who sounds like a dude' to have popped up here.
It goes the other way too - David Farrar thought Che Tibby was female...
-
I haven't been able to find a $500 post in the Word of the Year thread, so I've decided to retain the Ezi-Pay Gift Station voucher and divvy the proceeds amongst the Public Address crew, who haven't had much from me late.
I know I shouldn't bite the hand that feeds ... but are you trying out for a job at the Beeb?
-
Given that she's not yet one, and I've met her once, I'm pretty sure it's not the former. She might not even realise it's her first Christmas, but I will...
-
I'll think more, but this Christmas is my first with a neice, and man do I wish it would hurry up and arrive already :-)
-
Sorry, I know it's a very long quote
It's not the length ... it's the lack of paragraphing :-)
-
I walked into a conversation between Graeme and a National researcher at their Christmas party last week; the legal arguments were amusingly byzantine, but manageably incomprehensible.
We weren't really discussing the EFB - more a hypothetical argument about the meaning of Parliamentary Supremacy, the Bill of Rights 1688, and the budget process.
:-)
-
Fletcher - maybe you pulled out of the AA? Or just throw out Directions magazine - through which Innovations catalog usually arrived for us, anyway.
-
I don't find that especially funny, Graeme. Do you actually know what you are talking about?
I like to think I do - though I do probably know more about the American political system than I do about American politics.
I am aware of what cloture is; I acknowledge that it's possible (if unlikely) that the Dems might get a filibuster-proof majority. I just think it so incredibly unlikely that they'll get a veto-proof majority (two-thirds - in both the Senate and the House), that it really can't be a long-term aim.
The long-term aim of the democrats - to the extent that political parties (esp American ones) have long-term aims - must surely be to shift the political centre to the left, and to be in the majority for as much of the intervening time as possible, preferably with a fellow democrat in the White House for much of the time too.
If the democrats ever look like getting veto-proof majorities, the political centre will shift and they'll find they have less of a majority, but political consensus over some of the issues they've previously been fighting over.
-
Read the Dalai Lama's hilarious and seldom-reported edicts against contraception, homosexuality, and women's rights.
Well at least we have John Safran:
From John Safran vs God -
surely obtaining filibuster and veto proof majorities must be long term objectives
Seriously?
[insert some joke about smoking odd things]If the entire US moves to the left, the Senate will never fall to 33 Republicans. The Republicans would just move with the people, and they'd be fighting over a centre that was in a different place.
Also, party discipline is weak in the US - filibuster and veto proof majorities will happen with a different mix of senators across both parties on just about every issue they arise in.