CuriousRefugee

Every time I see a Swords Comic, I think, "They have to be running out of things to do, right?" I mean, how many ideas around swords can you have?

But Garfield has been around approximately 300 years just making jokes about a fat cat. But they usually suck now, and that makes me sad.

But then I remember that Dinosaur Comics has done over 4,000 comics with the exact same panels every time, and whenever I find time to check it out, I always laugh. So I guess that makes me happy, because if you're funny and clever and talented, you can keep it up. Thank goodness for talented creators. Not sure why I went into this rant here on a random Saturday, but probably nostalgia. Anyway, thanks for posting.

This is utterly adorable! Such a dapper gentleman you have!

What is this scene? Vaggie looks like she's on a pirate ship! Maybe from when she's singing the duet with Camilla in season 1? Whatever it Takes I think? I'm just trying to remember why she would be on a pirate ship, but sometimes the animation goes by so fast I miss things

The Dresden Files are all fun reads! The audiobooks are particularly good too, with James Marsters doing a wonderful job!

I'm finishing up Rhythm of War in the Stormlight Archive series. It's my first foray into Brandon Sanderson, and I'm enjoying it so far, but there's so much that I don't know how into the Cosmere I'll end up going. On the non-fiction side, I'm reading Nate Silver's On the Edge and trying to work my way through my third (maybe fourth?) reading of Gödel, Escher, Bach by Douglas Hofstadter, which I always grasp a little bit more of each reread.

Yes to the filibuster, no to the quorum. Although I think you might be using quorum incorrectly. If you mean these as 1 question, about simply removing the filibuster and setting the minimum threshold for passing a bill to 50 votes, then that happens automatically, although it's actually 51 votes without a tiebreaker.

Answer here, my personal opinions below. The filibuster is a Senate rule, not a law, and can be changed by a simple majority vote of the Senate. It does not require approval by the house or president. Changing or creating exceptions to the filibuster has been done several times over the years, from budget acts to disapproving actions of the executive branch. More recently, it has been removed for approval of federal judges. Harry Reid, a Democrat Senate Majority Leader got rid of the filibuster for approving federal judges, not including Supreme Court justices. Republican Mitch McConnell followed up a few years later by removing it for SC justices.

Without the filibuster, any business (well, almost any) such as approvals, bills, etc. requires a simple majority of Senators voting, assuming they have a quorum. If there are no absences or vacancies or abstentions (Senators there but not voting), that's 100 Senators, so 51 votes needed. If there are only 95 Senators voting, you would only need 48 votes (half of 95 is 47.5, so 47 would not be enough). If there is a tie (50-50, for example), the Vice-President (technically acting as the President of the Senate) can break ties, so a bill could only pass with 50 Senators voting yes, rather than 51, if you add in the VP's vote.

Quorum of the Senate is not a Senate rule. It comes from the Constitution, which says that a quorum is a majority of the full Senate (always 100). Vacancies are not counted. This means at least 51 Senators have to be physically there for any business to proceed. Changing it would require a constitutional amendment.

In my opinion, Harry Reid's filibuster removal was somewhat understandable, as Republicans really were obstructing judges, but it was nonetheless a political mistake and backfired horribly, opening the door for Republicans to eventually follow-up by removing the filibuster for SC justices and take firm control of the court. Removing the filibuster for ALL business, including laws, would have similar risk. John Thune, the current Republican Senate Majority Leader, has resisted doing so, despite pastor from Trump. I disagree with Thune on almost everything politically, but respect the backbone/wisdom of keeping the filibuster in place. In general, a good rule is "never give yourself political power you wouldn't want your political opponents to have." I kind of feel the same way on the quorum question, but I think that's not exactly what you were asking. No one really has a major problem with quorum rules, excepting rare intentional absences.

2020s: Still see people litter 😡

That describes the entire Star Wars Expanded Universe. Every character was critically important to the survival of the galaxy! Some strong books, some weak ones, and its ridiculous storylines all look phenomenal compared to the travesty of Disney canon, IMO

True, but I liked how they referenced Glup in the early Yuu'zhan Vong books by the asking about how he basically was the only reason Tattooine survived the Desolation! Nice nod to previous characters

I had a copy of Fahrenheit 451 as a kid that suddenly had a different book in it for about ten pages or so. I'm like 5 chapters in, and all of the characters change. Same font, same size text, so I was very confused when the next page was talking about some woman cuddling on a couch with a man, and him feeling her shoulders. I figured it out finally by the page numbers being off.

It was part of a romance novel, which probably wasn't explicit, but seemed spicy to a 10-year-old. I'd think it was a fever dream if my mom didn't bring it up every so often ("I wrote to the publisher and gave them an earful!"). Anyway, the publisher apologized and sent us a new copy plus some coupons. I wish we'd kept the book, though.

We're not there yet, but I could see a bit more fear-mongering smashing us into V For Vendetta territory

Wow, just gonna ignore Mr. Mime like that? He was way better for Ash's mom than Professor Oak!