Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/public/Sources/Load.php(225) : runtime-created function on line 3
Filibusters are not important
I Read This
November 15, 2018, 07:08:31 EST *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: New here? Read our voting instructions and rules
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Filibusters are not important  (Read 4247 times)
wodan46
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1469


« on: July 28, 2007, 22:06:15 EDT »

Liberal Eagle made comment on the Republicans filibustering everything.  While hypocritical and a misuse of the  filibuster, it hardly mattters.  Bush will veto just about everything that the Republicans would filibuster, so we need 2/3s anyway.  The one exception might be the immigration issue, which hasn't been able to get near a working compromise yet.
Logged

The plural of "anecdote" is "anecdotes". Not "data".
Zavion
This is my title.
Talking Head
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 940



WWW
« Reply #1 on: July 29, 2007, 00:05:21 EDT »

Liberal Eagle made comment on the Republicans filibustering everything.  While hypocritical and a misuse of the  filibuster, it hardly mattters.  Bush will veto just about everything that the Republicans would filibuster, so we need 2/3s anyway.  The one exception might be the immigration issue, which hasn't been able to get near a working compromise yet.

The problem with it is, if Bush vetoes it, they can point and say "We created this and you rejected it."

If it dies on the floor, they have nothing to show for their work, and they get the blame of doing nothing.
Logged

I don't like signatures, so I'm not making one.
What would you guys think I'd look like?

You're clearly a somewhat sexily thrusting cycloptic mecha with horns.
mullensmd
Political Analyst
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 282


TANSTAAFL!


« Reply #2 on: July 30, 2007, 03:01:27 EDT »

Liberal Eagle made comment on the Republicans filibustering everything.  While hypocritical and a misuse of the  filibuster, it hardly mattters.  Bush will veto just about everything that the Republicans would filibuster, so we need 2/3s anyway.  The one exception might be the immigration issue, which hasn't been able to get near a working compromise yet.

The problem with it is, if Bush vetoes it, they can point and say "We created this and you rejected it."

If it dies on the floor, they have nothing to show for their work, and they get the blame of doing nothing.

That's not the point here- point is, the Republicans are blocking bills- important bills- by just saying 'We're going to have to filibuster that.' By an agreement of about 20 years ago- they don't actually have to do it, just note their intention to do it. A cloture vote is called for, we lose- end of subject.

Even Harry Ried's thing wasn't really a filibuster. It was an extended debate, where members of both parties got up and had their say on the issue for 24 hours. Then a vote for cloture, which was scheduled, which we lost- end of that.

A true filibuster is a totally different thing. It's a mean, nasty, ugly, monster- and for good reason. You- or your party- have to actually stand on the Senate floor and hold up debate on the issue. Doesn't matter how. Huey Long quoted Shakespere and potsticer recipes. You just have to hold the floor. You can tag team, you can do anything youwant EXCEPT STOP TALKING!

Remember Mr Smith?

So, what about cloture? What if we know we don't have 60 senators, 'chosen and sworn' that will vote for ending the filibuster?

Doesn't matter- let them talk. Our problem is we just cave after ONE cloture vote. Failure of a vote doesn't mean that the bill fails- it means debate continiues Until we see it's hopeless, or until enough of them see that we won't back down and are forced to give us a vote!

So, we have a bill now- so what, you ask? Shrub's only gonna veto it, you whine? Fine, then let the Senators get their butts in there and vote on overturning it. Let's expect it to fail- what happens then?

Well, the democrats now march home and can proudly say "We got a vote on this bill- the Republicans tried to block us- but we won out. The President vetoed it- but that can be changed!"

And we do this not once, not twice, not FIFTY times- but EVERY TIME THE REPUBLICANS THINK THEY CAN STOP US!

It's time we make them PROVE IT!
Logged

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -7.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.28
wodan46
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1469


« Reply #3 on: July 31, 2007, 12:33:27 EDT »

 Mainly the media's fault though, cause if the democrats had filibustered, the media would have torn them apart
, but when the republicans violate every rule and convention, the media only makes snide and oblique remarks, cause they are too scared to go after them, if they don't actually support them.
Logged

The plural of "anecdote" is "anecdotes". Not "data".
Liberal Seagull
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1247



WWW
« Reply #4 on: August 08, 2007, 13:27:23 EDT »

A true filibuster is a totally different thing. It's a mean, nasty, ugly, monster- and for good reason. You- or your party- have to actually stand on the Senate floor and hold up debate on the issue. Doesn't matter how. Huey Long quoted Shakespere and potsticer recipes. You just have to hold the floor. You can tag team, you can do anything youwant EXCEPT STOP TALKING!

Strom Thurmond once famously filibustered for 24 hours and 18 minutes in a failed attempt to block the 1957 Civil Rights Act.
Logged

Disclaimer:
For external use only.  Seek medical attention if effects last more than 48 hours.  Do not mix with bleach.  Do not cross the streams.  If the plug does not fit your outlet, consult an electrician.  Side effects may include: Panic belching, excessive consumption of french fries, webbed feet, exploding uvula syndrome, temporary relocation to the 8th dimension, and the condition known as "bratwurst finger."  Disconnect all power before servicing.  Do not use while sleeping.  The electrons used in this message are in every measurable respect identical to electrons in other users' messages, and no claim to the contrary is implied.
Darkeforce
Banned
Political Thinktank
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7509


Forum's Punching Bag


« Reply #5 on: August 08, 2007, 17:02:55 EDT »

Ah, those were the days; when it was en vogue to be a hate-filled stick-in-the-mud! Oh, wait, it still is; isn't it?
Logged

"Going to War for Peace,
is like Screwing for Virginity."

"Politics. It's like having evil cake, and eating it, too" - Torg - Sluggy Freelance
Darryl
New Political Commentator
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6



« Reply #6 on: May 21, 2008, 18:18:24 EDT »

A true filibuster is a totally different thing. It's a mean, nasty, ugly, monster- and for good reason. You- or your party- have to actually stand on the Senate floor and hold up debate on the issue. Doesn't matter how. Huey Long quoted Shakespere and potsticer recipes. You just have to hold the floor. You can tag team, you can do anything youwant EXCEPT STOP TALKING!

Strom Thurmond once famously filibustered for 24 hours and 18 minutes in a failed attempt to block the 1957 Civil Rights Act.

Didn't that one get voted to cloture because practically all the Republican senators also got sick of his hate-filled diatribe? Maybe if they actually had to speak, a filibuster would be used less.
Logged
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!