QuoteBolivian President Evo Morales has said he will refuse to eat until the upper house of parliament, the Senate, passes a new electoral law
The opposition-controlled Senate is blocking a bill that would give greater political power to Bolivia's indigenous majority, to which Mr Morales belongs.
Fourteen special indigenous electoral districts would be created in places where Indian groups are in a minority.
The opposition says the bill would help the re-election of Mr Morales.
QuoteWe think that the president is blackmailing via the strike
Walter Guiteras
Opposition senator
Tensions flared last week when members of the governing party, which controls the lower house, clashed with the opposition over the bill.
The Andean nation has been marked by decades of political upheaval.
A new constitution designed to give more rights and a greater share of the land and resources to the country's indigenous majority was approved by more than 60% of voters in late January.
But tensions and deep division between the poorer, indigenous majority located in the highlands, and the wealthier and mixed-race lowlanders, have increased since Mr Morales took office three years ago, the BBC's Andres Schipani reports from La Paz.
'Blackmail'
"Faced with the negligence of a group of neoliberal lawmakers, we have to take this step," Mr Morales told reporters at the presidential palace in La Paz on Thursday.
A joint session of the Bolivian Congress saw heated exchanges
"Now is the best time to force opposition senators in the National Congress to approve the new law."
The electoral law would set the next presidential election for 6 December.
Members of the presidential cabinet pledged to join Mr Morales in his hunger protest but a palace spokesman ruled out a solidarity strike, to ensure the country continued to function.
Fernando Mesmer, a member of the influential centre-right opposition party Podemos, dismissed the president's hunger strike as "ridiculous".
He said that the ruling Movement for Socialism wanted to ensure the president's re-election in order to "cover up the massive corruption".
An opposition senator, Walter Guiteras, called Mr Morales' action "shameless".
"Congress is absolutely independent of the executive branch," he said.
"We think that the president is blackmailing via the strike. Hunger strikes can't be used within the logic and dynamics of democracy, within the terms of the coherence of law, to try to get something. It seems absolutely shameless to me."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7993274.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7993274.stm)
What the hell...?
A president going on a hunger strike because the parlement doesn't do what he wants? :huh:
Why not?
This is retarded :lol:
Kevin
So it was good enough for Gandhi but isn't for Morales? OK.
Quote from: The Brain on April 10, 2009, 04:32:39 AM
So it was good enough for Gandhi but isn't for Morales? OK.
Gandhi wasn't the president of India, a hunger strike is the weapon of the underdog.
This is just blackmail.
Kevin
While not fat, Evo Morales might benefit from losing a few pounds.
Quote from: Eochaid on April 10, 2009, 05:35:04 AM
Quote from: The Brain on April 10, 2009, 04:32:39 AM
So it was good enough for Gandhi but isn't for Morales? OK.
Gandhi wasn't the president of India, a hunger strike is the weapon of the underdog.
This is just blackmail.
Kevin
I don't see Gandhi as an underdog in 1947.
just wait him out: he'll cave or die. Either way is win for the opposition since dead men can't be re-elected
Quote from: The Brain on April 10, 2009, 05:48:09 AMI don't see Gandhi as an underdog in 1947.
In 1947 Gandhi was not a member of Government and opposed the Government's attitude towards Pakistan.
Kevin
Quote from: Viking on April 10, 2009, 05:39:04 AM
While not fat, Evo Morales might benefit from losing a few pounds.
From now on he will be known as Emo Morales.
Let it be known throughout the land!
I wonder if later he could put the MPs in prison for "endangering the life of the Head of State". :P
Who the fuck are you?
Quote from: BVN on April 10, 2009, 07:05:09 AMI'm also me :)
Don't anger me, interloper. :mad:
Quote from: Caliga on April 10, 2009, 06:47:11 AM
Who the fuck are you?
The details of my life are quite inconsequential... very well, where do I begin? My father was a relentlessly self-improving boulangerie owner from Belgium with low grade narcolepsy and a penchant for buggery. My mother was a fifteen year old French prostitute named Chloe with webbed feet. My father would womanize, he would drink. He would make outrageous claims like he invented the question mark. Sometimes he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy. The sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament. My childhood was typical. Summers in Rangoon, luge lessons. In the spring we'd make meat helmets. When I was insolent I was placed in a burlap bag and beaten with reeds- pretty standard really. At the age of twelve I received my first scribe. At the age of fourteen a Zoroastrian named Vilma ritualistically shaved my testicles. There really is nothing like a shorn scrotum... it's breathtaking- I highly suggest you try it.
Can I have a million dollars? :)
Quote from: Caliga on April 10, 2009, 07:09:42 AM
Can I have a million dollars? :)
How libertarian. Beg from others. :P
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 10, 2009, 07:16:48 AMHow libertarian. Beg from others. :P
As long as you're not the government, it's no problem. :cool:
When Hunger Strikes: America's Backwoods Gas Stations
Quote from: Caliga on April 10, 2009, 07:22:36 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 10, 2009, 07:16:48 AMHow libertarian. Beg from others. :P
As long as you're not the government, it's no problem. :cool:
Uh-huh. John Galt is a FRAUD!
Quote from: BVN on April 10, 2009, 07:05:09 AMI'm also me :)
Actually, you're you, not me!
Kevin
Quote from: BVN on April 10, 2009, 07:05:09 AM
I'm also me :)
And who the fuck is that? Does BVN stand for Better than Valmy and Neil? :grr:
Wow, I guess Bush and Clinton didn't think of this tactic in coercing Congress to vote the way they wanted! :huh:
If I were in the legislature I would call his bluff. The independence of the legislative brach is sacrosanct and will not be manipulated by grand standing populists. -_-
Quote from: Valmy on April 10, 2009, 07:49:38 AM
Quote from: BVN on April 10, 2009, 07:05:09 AM
I'm also me :)
And who the fuck is that? Does BVN stand for Better than Valmy and Neil? :grr:
Not everything evolves around you, you know. :rolleyes:
It stands for Better than Vonmoltke and Neil...
Quote from: BVN on April 10, 2009, 08:21:51 AM
Not everything evolves around you, you know. :rolleyes:
Lies!
QuoteIt stands for Better than Vonmoltke and Neil...
Oh ok that is acceptable. :)
What a ridiculous strategy, why would the opposition cave in? :D
Quote from: Viking on April 10, 2009, 05:39:04 AM
While not fat, Evo Morales might benefit from losing a few pounds.
Yep, he's a portly fellow. Almost as if he's been preparing for the hunger strike all his life.
Anywho, I never quite understood hunger strikes. Let them starve themselves to death if that's what they choose.
Quote from: derspiess on April 10, 2009, 08:32:54 AMAnywho, I never quite understood hunger strikes. Let them starve themselves to death if that's what they choose.
This is the sort of thinking that makes hunger strikes worthless in the United States.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 10, 2009, 08:28:30 AM
What a ridiculous strategy, why would the opposition cave in? :D
What the fuck does spelunking have to do with this?
Quote from: Valmy on April 10, 2009, 08:34:54 AM
Quote from: derspiess on April 10, 2009, 08:32:54 AMAnywho, I never quite understood hunger strikes. Let them starve themselves to death if that's what they choose.
This is the sort of thinking that makes hunger strikes worthless in the United States.
Hip hip hooray for the good ol' USA!
Quote from: Valmy on April 10, 2009, 08:34:54 AM
Quote from: derspiess on April 10, 2009, 08:32:54 AMAnywho, I never quite understood hunger strikes. Let them starve themselves to death if that's what they choose.
This is the sort of thinking that makes hunger strikes worthless in the United States.
If someone on a hunger strike gets weak enough from hunger you can just forcibly strap them down and hook them up to an IV so they won't die.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 10, 2009, 02:19:10 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 10, 2009, 08:34:54 AM
Quote from: derspiess on April 10, 2009, 08:32:54 AMAnywho, I never quite understood hunger strikes. Let them starve themselves to death if that's what they choose.
This is the sort of thinking that makes hunger strikes worthless in the United States.
If someone on a hunger strike gets weak enough from hunger you can just forcibly strap them down and hook them up to an IV so they won't die.
Yeah, but I've never understood why you'd bother.
Quote from: BVN on April 10, 2009, 08:21:51 AM
Quote from: Valmy on April 10, 2009, 07:49:38 AM
Quote from: BVN on April 10, 2009, 07:05:09 AM
I'm also me :)
And who the fuck is that? Does BVN stand for Better than Valmy and Neil? :grr:
Not everything evolves around you, you know. :rolleyes:
It stands for Better than Vonmoltke and Neil...
I thought about taking the name BVVM&N but decided against it.
Quote from: dps on April 11, 2009, 12:05:08 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 10, 2009, 02:19:10 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 10, 2009, 08:34:54 AM
Quote from: derspiess on April 10, 2009, 08:32:54 AMAnywho, I never quite understood hunger strikes. Let them starve themselves to death if that's what they choose.
This is the sort of thinking that makes hunger strikes worthless in the United States.
If someone on a hunger strike gets weak enough from hunger you can just forcibly strap them down and hook them up to an IV so they won't die.
Yeah, but I've never understood why you'd bother.
Because you don't want your political opponent to become a martyr.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 11, 2009, 08:52:14 AM
Because you don't want your political opponent to become a martyr.
That's the sort of reasoning that often plagues villains on children's TV shows. In real life, no man = no problem. If he wants to kill himself, so much the better.
Quote from: Neil on April 11, 2009, 09:33:35 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 11, 2009, 08:52:14 AM
Because you don't want your political opponent to become a martyr.
That's the sort of reasoning that often plagues villains on children's TV shows. In real life, no man = no problem. If he wants to kill himself, so much the better.
I've always wanted to be a villain on a children's tv show! :w00t:
Tim is a villain on Languish. His news posts sap the strength of the innocent.
Innocent of what?
Quote from: The Brain on April 11, 2009, 10:04:23 AM
Innocent of what?
I'm secretly a 12 year old girl, and all this naughty talk on this forum is bad.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 11, 2009, 09:55:42 AM
I've always wanted to be a villain on a children's tv show! :w00t:
Stephen Harper looked perturbed, usually he was able to hide his doubts behind a mask of political indifference, but today he could not. "Gentlemen," he addressed Captain Canada and Barrister Boy, "Something terrible has happened. Last night every history text book in Ontario was stolen and replaced with this," he placed a book upon the desk. It was black and written on the cover was "The Paleologus-Ribbentrop Pact and the Founding of the Modern European State."
"Ye gods," exclaimed Barrister Boy as he thumbed through the book perusing page upon page of maps. "It's alt-history."
"Poorly written alt history too," noted Captain Canada, reading over Barrister Boy's shoulder.
"That goes without saying," replied Stephen Harper. "Only one fiend is so vile to have foisted alt-history on innocent children; Timothy Ortega."
:D
MELT HIS FACE OFF!
Quote from: Savonarola on April 11, 2009, 02:52:02 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 11, 2009, 09:55:42 AM
I've always wanted to be a villain on a children's tv show! :w00t:
Stephen Harper looked perturbed, usually he was able to hide his doubts behind a mask of political indifference, but today he could not. "Gentlemen," he addressed Captain Canada and Barrister Boy, "Something terrible has happened. Last night every history text book in Ontario was stolen and replaced with this," he placed a book upon the desk. It was black and written on the cover was "The Paleologus-Ribbentrop Pact and the Founding of the Modern European State."
"Ye gods," exclaimed Barrister Boy as he thumbed through the book perusing page upon page of maps. "It's alt-history."
"Poorly written alt history too," noted Captain Canada, reading over Barrister Boy's shoulder.
Tarring me with the mark of a Byzanteen! Disgraceful! It goes without saying Sir, that this means war.
You tell him, Tim. Use your machine-gun arm.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 11, 2009, 03:36:57 PM
Tarring me with the mark of a Byzanteen! Disgraceful! It goes without saying Sir, that this means war.
I'll make it up to you, Tim. I'll ship you and Barrister Boy when I write my own poorly written fan fiction.
Timothy Ortega lolzed as he stared down on Barrister Boy tied to a chair. Only he wasn't really tied, he was held in place with those iron things that hold people to chairs. It was a big chair. "Now I have you in my clutches."
"WTF? Why did you kidnap me?" asked Barrister Boy. He knew Captain Canada would rescue him, but he was still mad. It was the middle of the Stanley Cup and Timothy Ortega didn't have a television. Plus Tim was always doing shit like writing alternate history versions of hockey games. Like when the Bruins won, even though they suck. He'd prolly make Barrister Boy read those.
"Well," Tim blushed furiously, and the room became steamy, like a steam room. "The truth is I've always had feelings for you. Like that song by Nine Inch Nails that goes 'I Want to Fuck You like an Animal.'"
"Woah," said Barrister Boy, like Keanu Reeves on horse tranquilizers. "That's my favorite Nine Inch Nails song too." Barrister Boy felt he had a spiritual connection to Tim, even though he was a bad guy. It was like they were soul mates, or something.
Perfect. :lmfao:
Sav: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao:
Shippers should die in a fire. <_<
EDIT: Also, please read your PMs Sav
On the OP:
Emo Morales is a whiny bitch. Film at 11.
Quote from: Savonarola on April 11, 2009, 04:39:28 PM
I'll make it up to you, Tim. I'll ship you and Barrister Boy when I write my own poorly written fan fiction.
Timothy Ortega lolzed as he stared down on Barrister Boy tied to a chair. Only he wasn't really tied, he was held in place with those iron things that hold people to chairs. It was a big chair. "Now I have you in my clutches."
"WTF? Why did you kidnap me?" asked Barrister Boy. He knew Captain Canada would rescue him, but he was still mad. It was the middle of the Stanley Cup and Timothy Ortega didn't have a television. Plus Tim was always doing shit like writing alternate history versions of hockey games. Like when the Bruins won, even though they suck. He'd prolly make Barrister Boy read those.
"Well," Tim blushed furiously, and the room became steamy, like a steam room. "The truth is I've always had feelings for you. Like that song by Nine Inch Nails that goes 'I Want to Fuck You like an Animal.'"
"Woah," said Barrister Boy, like Keanu Reeves on horse tranquilizers. "That's my favorite Nine Inch Nails song too." Barrister Boy felt he had a spiritual connection to Tim, even though he was a bad guy. It was like they were soul mates, or something.
I'd like to belatedly say that I'm quite disturbed by this.
Quote from: garbon on June 02, 2009, 03:05:53 PM
I'd like to belatedly say that I'm quite disturbed by this.
That's putting it mildly...
Quote from: Barrister on June 02, 2009, 03:19:19 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 02, 2009, 03:05:53 PM
I'd like to belatedly say that I'm quite disturbed by this.
That's putting it mildly...
Yeah.
For one, no mention of the Maple Leafs. :(
Quote from: Malthus on June 02, 2009, 03:20:56 PM
Yeah.
For one, no mention of the Maple Leafs. :(
To be fair I did say it was the Stanley Cup finals. Even fan fiction must have some amount of believability.
Quote from: Savonarola on June 02, 2009, 03:38:57 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 02, 2009, 03:20:56 PM
Yeah.
For one, no mention of the Maple Leafs. :(
To be fair I did say it was the Stanley Cup finals. Even fan fiction must have some amount of believability.
They can't even make it to the finals in Timmay's alternate history. :(
Quote from: Malthus on June 02, 2009, 03:41:07 PM
Quote from: Savonarola on June 02, 2009, 03:38:57 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 02, 2009, 03:20:56 PM
Yeah.
For one, no mention of the Maple Leafs. :(
To be fair I did say it was the Stanley Cup finals. Even fan fiction must have some amount of believability.
They can't even make it to the finals in Timmay's alternate history. :(
Tie Domi and Don Cherry slash fiction.
brrrr.
So, is this guy still on his hunger strike, or did the political opposition find this legislative technique too much to handle, and finally give in? :huh:
Quote from: KRonn on June 03, 2009, 07:49:14 AM
So, is this guy still on his hunger strike, or did the political opposition find this legislative technique too much to handle, and finally give in? :huh:
They gave in not that long after he declared it.
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 02, 2009, 06:51:13 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 02, 2009, 03:41:07 PM
Quote from: Savonarola on June 02, 2009, 03:38:57 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 02, 2009, 03:20:56 PM
Yeah.
For one, no mention of the Maple Leafs. :(
To be fair I did say it was the Stanley Cup finals. Even fan fiction must have some amount of believability.
They can't even make it to the finals in Timmay's alternate history. :(
Tie Domi and Don Cherry slash fiction.
brrrr.
Somehow, I imagine the phrase "nice Tie you got there" would arise. :lol:
Quote from: garbon on June 03, 2009, 09:36:10 AM
Quote from: KRonn on June 03, 2009, 07:49:14 AM
So, is this guy still on his hunger strike, or did the political opposition find this legislative technique too much to handle, and finally give in? :huh:
They gave in not that long after he declared it.
Lol...
I remember seeing that guy interviewed on The Daily Show. It sickened me when the audience applauded as he was talking about nationalizing foreign industries. Sometimes liberals can be very stupid, or at the very least way too polite.
Quote from: KRonn on June 03, 2009, 11:25:05 AM
Lol...
Looked it up, opposition faded after 5 days of Evo and supporters only drinking water and chewing on coca leaves. So basically Evo used coca leaves to suppress his appetite...
How annoying.
This is such a childish strategy.
Quote from: DGuller on June 03, 2009, 11:30:41 AM
I remember seeing that guy interviewed on The Daily Show. It sickened me when the audience applauded as he was talking about nationalizing foreign industries. Sometimes liberals can be very stupid, or at the very least way too polite.
I prefer the interviews on Colbert Report. Daily Show does funnier news bits, but Colbert is the better (more inconvenient) interviewer, asking the uncomfortable questions through his Hansmeister persona.
Quote from: Syt on June 03, 2009, 12:07:25 PM
Quote from: DGuller on June 03, 2009, 11:30:41 AM
I remember seeing that guy interviewed on The Daily Show. It sickened me when the audience applauded as he was talking about nationalizing foreign industries. Sometimes liberals can be very stupid, or at the very least way too polite.
I prefer the interviews on Colbert Report. Daily Show does funnier news bits, but Colbert is the better (more inconvenient) interviewer, asking the uncomfortable questions through his Hansmeister persona.
I disagree strongly. I find Colbert's interviews highly unwatchable, because he doesn't STFU for one second and let his shtick rest, and let his guest actually talk. His questions are uncomfortable, because being talked over and interrupted all the time is pretty uncomfortable.
I like Stewart's style of getting serious and respectful during interviews, and letting the viewers actually find out something about the guest, or his area of expertise. It's true that he's extremely soft, but it's not his job to ambush guests Tim Russert style.
Quote from: DGuller on June 03, 2009, 12:39:24 PM
His questions are uncomfortable, because being talked over and interrupted all the time is pretty uncomfortable.
That's often, though, because he doesn't let his guests skirt around questions too much and tries to get a straight answer out of them now and then.
Quote from: Syt on June 03, 2009, 12:44:07 PM
Quote from: DGuller on June 03, 2009, 12:39:24 PM
His questions are uncomfortable, because being talked over and interrupted all the time is pretty uncomfortable.
That's often, though, because he doesn't let his guests skirt around questions too much and tries to get a straight answer out of them now and then.
That's not my experience, but maybe I'm just too irritated by his shtick to notice this subtlety. In general, his guests can't give a straight answer, because they're rarely allowed to say anything meaningful at all.
Quote from: DGuller on June 03, 2009, 12:39:24 PM
Quote from: Syt on June 03, 2009, 12:07:25 PM
Quote from: DGuller on June 03, 2009, 11:30:41 AM
I remember seeing that guy interviewed on The Daily Show. It sickened me when the audience applauded as he was talking about nationalizing foreign industries. Sometimes liberals can be very stupid, or at the very least way too polite.
I prefer the interviews on Colbert Report. Daily Show does funnier news bits, but Colbert is the better (more inconvenient) interviewer, asking the uncomfortable questions through his Hansmeister persona.
I disagree strongly. I find Colbert's interviews highly unwatchable, because he doesn't STFU for one second and let his shtick rest, and let his guest actually talk. His questions are uncomfortable, because being talked over and interrupted all the time is pretty uncomfortable.
I like Stewart's style of getting serious and respectful during interviews, and letting the viewers actually find out something about the guest, or his area of expertise. It's true that he's extremely soft, but it's not his job to ambush guests Tim Russert style.
It's their job to be funny, not informative. Stewart has gotten a little too full of himself.