You may have heard that the state of Massachusetts elected a new senator (above) this week, and that, against all odds, he was a Republican. It's on of those rare things that happens every century or so, like the appearance of Halley's comet or someone spotting a black guy in Utah.
As a result, the Democrats may not be able to get their health care bill through Congress after all now that they've lost their ever-important 60th vote in the Senate. What else will the Democrats in Congress now not be able to do since they only have a tiny, 58-seat majority?
- Almost tightening up restrictions on financial institutions before screwing it up somehow
- Almost giving gays marriage rights before screwing it up somehow
- Almost passing a climate change bill before screwing it up somehow
- Almost working out some kind of deal with Iran to get rid of nuclear weapons before screwing that up somehow
- Almost reducing the US's dependence on foreign oil before screwing that up somehow
- Almost looking like they had a majority
- Almost doing anything of value or worth
Comments
Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons. That is a lie perpetuated by Israel who does have illegal nuclear weapons.
Posted by: MikeM | January 22, 2010 1:39 PM
Oh God, Don't tell me we're going to have this discussion here.
Posted by: Doktor Puppykicker | January 22, 2010 1:48 PM
Now, now, can't we just say all countries that start with "I" have illegal nuclear weapons?
Furthermore, what makes nuclear weapons "illegal"? Shouldn't we just go ahead and outlaw of them? Now that's what the Democratic majority should'a done. Or you know, anything. Like, seriously.
Posted by: Adicus Ryan Garton | January 23, 2010 11:53 AM
Yes, I'm with Adicus. Let's define "illegal" Nuclear Weapons.
Is it illegal to buy nuclear weapons out of the back of a truck? Or to store them in a Fortress of Doom? Or to point them at various countries with the threat of firing them unless my demands are met by midnight tonight? ...or to have "accidently" already fired one at a country no one cares about as a warning shot?
I say to you, this is a debate that must be had. And to the world I say: I have nuclear weapons. They are pointed at you. Give into my demands by midnight, and don't bother asking which timezone's midnight I mean.
Posted by: Gal Sabre | January 24, 2010 2:26 AM
"illegal" nuclear weapons is when basically any country which is not insanely wealthy has them. This nuclear weapons ban is only for the poorer countries, and it just perpetuates an international aristocracy. I say ALL countries should throw away their nuclear bombs. then when I build my own, it will be so much easier to hold them all for ransom. But assuming the wealthy, powerful countries are too scared to do that, they at least shouldn't be hypocrites about it. Oh wait, I forgot hypocrisy is just what politicians do. Nevermind.
Posted by: Colonel Masters | January 26, 2010 1:35 AM
There are, of course, nuclear weapons in both Iran and Israel. The mistake people keep making is when they assume that these weapons are the property of the govenrment.
Really, the only difference between a government and a corporation is that people think they have a say in how the government is run, and employees know better. And the only difference between an evil mastermind and a CEO is that the mastermind is more likely to go to jail if he's caught.
Posted by: Mitsuzori Kamen | January 31, 2010 4:54 AM