The babyjesuschristsuperstar on Board: filling the moral void of Clinton’s legacy

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
*ahem* Careful. This position may antagonize anyone whose name was bestowed by Queen Isabella.

Turbot-lover!

Tax(he wasn't talking about the Aristocratic Mexicans)Wonk

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Oliver_Wendell_Ramone
Here in wild salmon country, that solution wouldn't go over so well. Just about everybody in these parts thinks farmed salmon is a bad idea.

Where do people think farmed salmon is a good idea? It's bad eating. Maybe a couple of rec halls in Maine where the fishermen put out of business by the expansionist canucks have been able to land jobs tossing pelletized algae into the holding pens?

[Anntila the Hun]

Originally posted by Raggedy Ann Coulter
Thank you.

Off my corner, you greasy skanky ho!

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Can you work in a fondue joke somehow?

Fish fondue is a joke in itself.

[Oliver_Wendell_Ramone]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Where do people think farmed salmon is a good idea? It's bad eating. Maybe a couple of rec halls in Maine where the fishermen put out of business by the expansionist canucks have been able to land jobs tossing pelletized algae into the holding pens?

I suspect the fish farmers and some in the distribution chain think it's a good idea. I've actually had good farmed salmon (before I decided never to buy it). Bland compared to wild, but still good. I think most Japanese restuarants use farmed for sushi. I guess that's one exception to my no-farmed-salmon rule.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
This is stupid. If Lieberman knew anything at all about the NIH, he'd know there is already, within the NIH, the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (diabetes), the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (Alzheimer's), the National Cancer Institute (cancer), and theNational Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (heart disease), among many, many, many, too many others. This would just add yet another agency to the NIH, and nobody would be able to figure out its mission or its authority separate from all the other agencies within the NIH. For each of the targeted diseases, there would just be a separate program within the Center for Cures, and how exactly would that be different from what we have now in the NIH?

Another reason to dislike the DLC, and why Lieberman is in reality a Republican.

Now that was a post. None of this soft peddaling B.S.

Ty and Balt - do you see this post? Learn from it. You are both getting soft. Time to get tough.

My response to this is that I think for departments a lot of how logic behind organizing them and naming thewm is getting money out of Congress. I think this Cure idea would be easier to get appropriations for in Congress. If someone voted for a decrease, or not for a decrese they could get pummled by their opponent.

So the name is important.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
This is stupid.

First off, we'll all end up with dear eating apples in our back yard.

Second, farmed fish suck. They really do. Not only do they taste awful, they're filled with bad chemicals, metals, and such.

The solution is tradable property rights. (It's the only non-idiotic solution). Figure out how many fish can be taken consistent with sustainable stocks. Sell (or give away) licenses to take a certain percentage of that. Done. It saves fishermen from having to buy bigger, faster boats. a guy with a rod and reel might be enough to take his annual catch.

I would argue with you but I know absolutely nothing about farmed fish. On the other hand, I do prefer farm animals to game. In other words I prefer beef to venison.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Spanky
My response to this is that I think for departments a lot of how logic behind organizing them and naming thewm is getting money out of Congress. I think this Cure idea would be easier to get appropriations for in Congress. If someone voted for a decrease, or not for a decrese they could get pummled by their opponent.

I left this board for good 2 weeks ago. I just came back for a quick visit and read this. Question: did you guys work out some new language rule, like pig latin, so only your in group can understand what you post?

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I left this board for good 2 weeks ago. I just came back for a quick visit and read this. Question: did you guys work out some new language rule, like pig latin, so only your in group can understand what you post?

No, Hank. Spanky has always posted like that.

You just weren't such a critical audience when you were on the same team.

S_A_M

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I left this board for good 2 weeks ago. I just came back for a quick visit and read this. Question: did you guys work out some new language rule, like pig latin, so only your in group can understand what you post?

WTTW, only pathetic losers post on weekends.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
No, Hank. Spanky has always posted like that.

You just weren't such a critical audience when you were on the same team.

S_A_M

saying what for you!!!! resnet that I. cOuld say taht you how? pOst my awlays and distinct claer.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
WTTW, only pathetic losers post on weekends.

Tell me about it.

[Captain]

The Supreme Court is now going to hear arguments on the constitutionality of the Texas redistricting. Regardless of the outcome, it seems clear to me that this redistricting was a political hack job, engaged in for purely partisan purposes. It also strikes me that the manner in which redistricting occurs is inevitably highly partisan, and is a way in which parties have perpetuated themselves from the beginning and in a way I do not believe was envisioned or planned for by the founders.

Why not, in this age of technological progress, have all redistricting done by computer programs under the supervision of a clearly non-partisan commission (perhaps even one appointed by the judiciary instead of by politicians)?

[Captain]

Originally posted by taxwonk
WTTW, only pathetic losers post on weekends.

Is this a long weekend?

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Captain
The Supreme Court is now going to hear arguments on the constitutionality of the Texas redistricting. Regardless of the outcome, it seems clear to me that this redistricting was a political hack job, engaged in for purely partisan purposes. It also strikes me that the manner in which redistricting occurs is inevitably highly partisan, and is a way in which parties have perpetuated themselves from the beginning and in a way I do not believe was envisioned or planned for by the founders.

Why not, in this age of technological progress, have all redistricting done by computer programs under the supervision of a clearly non-partisan commission (perhaps even one appointed by the judiciary instead of by politicians)?

Because the parties in power know that they'd lose that power if such a system were to be created. The Republicans were probably right about the 1991 maps drawn by the Democrats. They did give dems a disproportionate amount of seats in Texas given the political demographics in the state in 1991. And the dems were able to hold on to the legislature for about 15 years beyond the switch of the state from predominately Democratic to predominantly Republican. The maps that the Repubicans drew in 2003 are designed to hold on to Republican power past the demographics switching in Texas to majority Hispanic (I think that's projected to happen around 2015 or so).