Senator Tim Johnson (D) of South Dakota suffered a stroke the other day, and they did brain surgery to correct a hemmorhage. It's not known to what extent he'll recover if he recovers at all or whether or not he'll still be able to serve in the senate.

As I understand it, if he's incapable of fulfilling his post, the governor of the state appoints a replacement. The governor is a Republican and would likely appoint a Republican. That would put the Senate split 50/50 between the Dems and the Republicans. In the event of a tie, Dick Cheney breaks it. So essentially, if home dude doesn't pull out, the hold the Democrats have on the Senate is done.

No idea what will happen. It's all pure speculation at this point. Strom Thurmond was basically a vegetable for the last years of his Senatorial service. We'll see.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/12/...ill/index.html

Its a sad story for the guys family. I would feel too much like a ghoul to worry about any of this until we know wether or not he is going to pull through.

Unlike alot of politicians on both sides this guy is not a bad guy either.

I admit I don't know much about his politics. As to what Billy said, I was thinking the same thing watching Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopolous (sp?) last night. It went something like: "How's he doing blah blah blah? Hey, what does this mean for the Senate?"

It seemed rather... cold.

Politics often is.

As I understand it, the only person that can choose whether a Senator is replaced is the Senator himself. So unless he asks for a replacement, he'll still have his position, whether or not he can make it to his Senate seat.

There was a former Senator on CNN talking about how one guy, during the vote for the Civil Rights Act, was actually carried in a stretcher and helped to stand long enough to cast his vote, then was carried right back out again.

well if he has to retire or he dies or whatever the govoner of his state appoints the his replacement. And the gov from his state is a republican.

Yep, which means that the appointment will most likely be from the GOP, thus taking away the majority from the Dems, and giving our government one more excuse to be quibbling, partisan bastards, as usual.

Didn't I already say that in my first post? Thanks for reiterating the entire point of this thread, gentlemen.

Welcome.

Does it really matter? Regardless of which mainstream political party controls any branch of government, the result is the same: repetitive illusions and empty promises meant to placate the herd of terrified sheep that are the majority of the american community, rather than actually fixing any problems that we have.

Vampire avatar? Check.
Pseudo-intellectual quote in signature? Check.
Use of the word "sheep"? Check.

Congratulations we have a winner.

Are you insane? Or do you enjoy the smell of your own shit so much that you have to spout out yet more shit to sniff?

If there is Republican control, that means Republican agendas are pushed forward. That means abortion, gay marriage, "war on terror", to name a few. If Democrats control, same issues.. different result. Party lines are very blurred these days, but you're delusional if you think it doesn't matter who controls the Senate and the House.

My sanity is not the issue, here. My point was that the issues you mentioned are actually somewhat minor in comparison to the real, yet unspoken problems which plague our country. Companies moving their factories over seas for cheaper labor and the resulting job-loss, the failure of the "trickle down" theory, ridiculous gun control laws whose only effect is to make it harder for an honest hard-working citizen to own a firearm, homelessness, increased taxes, inflation, minimum wage still being unlivable, etc. These have been problems since the 19th century, and they're still here. Why? Because those with the will to change it have not the power, and those with the power have not the will. Democrat or republican, these modern sins will continue until long after we're all dust in a collapsed grave. Tell me I'm wrong.

A problem, and I'm against all of our current free-trade deals, but some of that is inevitable. We're at almost full employment in America, if all those factories came home, we wouldn't have enough people to work them.


"Trickle-down" isn't a theory, it's the way capitalism works, and the more gov't gets in the way of the trickle, the less trickles down. I don't know about you, but I never got a job from a poor man, and it's basic common sense that the healthier your employer's bottom line is, the more likely you are to get a raise.

You're right on that one.

Homeless people are either lazy or crazy. The crazy ones should be locked up, and I don't care if the lazy ones die and rot in their own filth.

This is one where party differences matter. Democrats generally raise taxes, republicans generally do not. One of the few things that honorless pig, Bush, has done right is cut taxes every year.

Inflation is non-existant in America at the moment, for more reasons than I care to list right now.

As it should be. Nobody "lives" on minimum wage. I read stats on it recently, from memory, like 90% of people earning minimum wage are teenagers, or unskilled spouses who just want to earn a few extra dollars for the household.

You're wrong, mostly.

You're wrong.

Fuck I'm sick of the whining about job outsourcing, etc. I don't particularly appreciate Habeeb calling to collect my credit card payment, but they're really no worse than Bob the r-tard who stutters while he confirms my social security number. The resulting job loss? You picked up a newspaper lately? Anyone that can't find a job is either lazy or stupid.

For fuck's sake, cut the melodrama.