>> IT'S THE BISHOP!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDnE-5lD7w8

> No one ever expects the Spanish Inquisition.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uprjmoSMJ-o

Post a reply to this message

> On 09/08/2012 08:34 PM, Stephen wrote:
>
>> Anyway it is historical. Back in the day Archbishops were just a tad
>> more powerful than they are now. And they had their own armies. So they
>> had to be listened to.
>
> IT'S THE BISHOP!
>
> <que music...>

cue, as in give the cue to the sound guy to start the music.

"que" means "that" in French (pronounced "kuh") or Spanish (pronounced 
"kay")

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

On 10/08/2012 7:21 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>> IT'S THE BISHOP!
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDnE-5lD7w8
>
>> No one ever expects the Spanish Inquisition.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uprjmoSMJ-o

Do remember that it was considered innovative at the time. :-)

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 8/10/2012 8:35 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 08:52:48 +0100, Invisible wrote:
>
>> On 09/08/2012 05:30 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>
>>> That doesn't surprise me one bit.  The Republican agenda is simple:
>>> Vote for whatever Obama is against, and vote against whatever Obama is
>>> for. Then blame him for failing to move things forward.
>>
>> Isn't that what the opposition party does in /every/ nation?
>
> Not to the extent that happens here in the US.
>
> In most rational, civilized countries, the two (or more) parties figure
> out how to compromise on things.
>
> But here in the US, the Republican idea of compromise is "do it the way
> we want, or we'll block everything you want to do".
>
> The Democratic idea of compromise is closer to actual compromise, but
> when compromising, you expect something from the other side.  It seems
> that most Democratic legislators are naive enough to believe the
> Republicans when they say "give us something here and we'll give you
> something on something else" - which they rarely, if ever do.
>
> Jim
>
This has been described, fairly accurately, as, "Republicans move more 
right, so the Democrats move right to compromise with them, only to have 
the Republicans move more right again." At best, the Dems have become 
centrist, most would call them center-right, and "liberal" is some place 
on a different planet from them. When Obama got elected this trend 
became, "Democrats try to reclaim some vague semblance of progressive 
ideals, Republicans move so far right that **they** are now on a 
completely different planet as well, and they left the subspace radio at 
home." Its like watching some old black and white slapstick act, where 
one idiot is on the end of a balance beam, holding on by their fingers, 
and the other idiot is trying to creep out towards the end of it, as it 
tilts farther and farther towards dropping them both, in an attempt to 
help rescue them. Only.. there is no "comedic" element in this act, at 
all. Just a 500 foot drop, with no last minute "save".

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 11:18:22 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> This has been described, fairly accurately, as, "Republicans move more
> right, so the Democrats move right to compromise with them, only to have
> the Republicans move more right again." At best, the Dems have become
> centrist, most would call them center-right, and "liberal" is some place
> on a different planet from them. When Obama got elected this trend
> became, "Democrats try to reclaim some vague semblance of progressive
> ideals, Republicans move so far right that **they** are now on a
> completely different planet as well, and they left the subspace radio at
> home." Its like watching some old black and white slapstick act, where
> one idiot is on the end of a balance beam, holding on by their fingers,
> and the other idiot is trying to creep out towards the end of it, as it
> tilts farther and farther towards dropping them both, in an attempt to
> help rescue them. Only.. there is no "comedic" element in this act, at
> all. Just a 500 foot drop, with no last minute "save".

I've heard it said that the Democrats need a left-wing version of the Tea 
Party so they can say "we'd love to do x, but we have these loons way out 
on the left who won't vote for us if we don't" the way the tea party does 
on the right.

There's not a strong enough progressive wing in the Democratic party to 
pull things back to the left.  It's kinda like a tug-o-war.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 8/11/2012 11:27 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 11:18:22 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> This has been described, fairly accurately, as, "Republicans move more
>> right, so the Democrats move right to compromise with them, only to have
>> the Republicans move more right again." At best, the Dems have become
>> centrist, most would call them center-right, and "liberal" is some place
>> on a different planet from them. When Obama got elected this trend
>> became, "Democrats try to reclaim some vague semblance of progressive
>> ideals, Republicans move so far right that **they** are now on a
>> completely different planet as well, and they left the subspace radio at
>> home." Its like watching some old black and white slapstick act, where
>> one idiot is on the end of a balance beam, holding on by their fingers,
>> and the other idiot is trying to creep out towards the end of it, as it
>> tilts farther and farther towards dropping them both, in an attempt to
>> help rescue them. Only.. there is no "comedic" element in this act, at
>> all. Just a 500 foot drop, with no last minute "save".
>
> I've heard it said that the Democrats need a left-wing version of the Tea
> Party so they can say "we'd love to do x, but we have these loons way out
> on the left who won't vote for us if we don't" the way the tea party does
> on the right.
>
> There's not a strong enough progressive wing in the Democratic party to
> pull things back to the left.  It's kinda like a tug-o-war.
>
> Jim
>
Yeah, we are in the mud pit between, and the other referee went to 
lunch, so the other side just keeps pulling.

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 20:25:25 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> Yeah, we are in the mud pit between, and the other referee went to
> lunch,
> so the other side just keeps pulling.

We have a referee?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 8/11/2012 9:30 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 20:25:25 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> Yeah, we are in the mud pit between, and the other referee went to
>> lunch,
>> so the other side just keeps pulling.
>
> We have a referee?
>
> Jim
>
Yeah, they wear these shirts that say, "undecided", on them. lol

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 12:28:06 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> On 8/11/2012 9:30 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 20:25:25 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>
>>> Yeah, we are in the mud pit between, and the other referee went to
>>> lunch,
>>> so the other side just keeps pulling.
>>
>> We have a referee?
>>
>> Jim
>>
> Yeah, they wear these shirts that say, "undecided", on them. lol

Good one. :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 8/4/2012 3:04 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> On 04/08/2012 08:43 PM, Francois Labreque wrote:
>
>> If your version of the facts holds up, this man has no business running
>> a company.
>
> Oh, apparently he quit three weeks ago.

Hump and Dump?

> Presumably so that there's enough money to pay for /his/ severance
> package, even if there isn't enough left to pay ours...

Mmm... Golden Parachute. The American Dream. X(

---
~Mike

-- 
---
~Mike

Post a reply to this message